Early Draft of the Report of the Bylaws and Rules Committee to the delegates of the Libertarian National Convention of 2010, St. Louis, Missouri
Adopted 27 February 2009
Additionally, if members want to comment on any of the proposals, there is a survey available here:
This is the draft of the report that will be considered at the national
convention to be held in St. Louis in the summer of 2010.
This introduction to the survey from the chair of the Bylaws and
Rules Committee:
The Bylaws and Rules Committee is charged with the mission of
recommending changes to the LP Bylaws and Convention Special Rules of Order, to be considered at each convention. Prior to 2008, the Bylaws Committee routinely met once per convention — the day before the convention. The results were hit and miss, and often the next convention had to fix the misses.Going into the 2008 Convention, the Bylaws Committee met one additional time, several months before the Convention – long enough to post the proposals on the web and ask members to take the survey. The results revealed some glitches which — this time — we were able to fix before they got adopted. We also were shown a more useful way to rank the proposals — by member interest and support. That way, less Convention
time was taken up with proposals that had little support outside the Bylaws Committee.Following the Denver convention, at the inaugural LNC meeting, I announced that I wanted to populate the Bylaws Committee at the VERY NEXT meeting — fully a year and a half ahead of schedule. That was done, and this time through, the Bylaws Committee has already met once, and will likely meet two more times. Furthermore, this long lead time makes a much more comprehensive survey possible: we will not meet again until early 2010, so we will have considerable time to improve our proposals according to your feedback and suggestions. We also are likely to develop several more proposals as a result of discovering issues we overlooked so far.
Your input is valuable. Please take a few minutes to work through the survey and let us know what you think.
38 responses so far ↓
1 Michael Seebeck // Apr 30, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Beware of these proposals–they are mostly designed to screw the members!
2 Thomas L. Knapp // Apr 30, 2009 at 1:22 pm
I wouldn’t say “mostly.” A number of them make good sense.
On the other hand, some of them don’t make good sense, and others create new openings for the kind of abusive gamesmanship that we’ve seen with the current LNC.
3 Chuck Moulton // Apr 30, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Could you guys be more specific?
4 Nicholas Sarwark // Apr 30, 2009 at 1:53 pm
What Chuck said. Those of us who serve on the Bylaws Committee appreciate specific feedback on specific proposals.
I don’t know of any proposal designed to “screw the members,” but if one would have that effect, I would oppose it.
5 MS // Apr 30, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I think I like all of them with the possible exception of the one to expel LNC members that sign other parties petetions and I’m on the fence about the single ballot one (the last one)
6 Michael Seebeck // Apr 30, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Read the blog comments at http://lpbylaws.blogspot.com and you’ll see the screw jobs. Specifically, the changes proposed to voting procedures are going to confuse delegates and attempt to fix a system that isn’t broken, Bylaws by mail is just stupid and creates voting conflicts between national sustaining members and delegates, one proposal strips the LNC of oversight, and several are improperly worded and arranged.
BTW, the survey does not seem to allow anonymous comments.
7 George Phillies // Apr 30, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Ranked Choice Voting, as a replacement for IRV, as based on a false set of assumptions as to how people order choices. It also prevents coalition making and bargaining.
8 Michael Seebeck // Apr 30, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I’m still not sure I totally understand IRV tabulations some days, George.
I’m more partial to AP Top 25-style voting, where the ranks are point-weighted and then the total points determine final rank. It may have some problems, but at least I understand the process.
9 Thomas L. Knapp // Apr 30, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Nicholas,
The two biggest “specifics” for me are:
- In recommendations 30 and 36 , the LNC is given the power to expel members and/or affiliate officers from the party.
- Recommendation #31 empowers the LNC to veto presidential and vice-presidential candidacies based on whether or not the candidate has signed a contract with the LNC, pertaining to campaign/LNC cooperation, in advance of the convention.
I don’t trust the LNC (any LNC, past or future) with the authority to expel members.
Nor do I trust the LNC (any) LNC with the authority to decide in advance which otherwise eligible candidates the convention may or may not consider for nomination based on whether or not those candidates agree to terms the LNC is empowered to set at its discretion.
Both of those prospective powers are inherently abusable.
10 Thomas L. Knapp // Apr 30, 2009 at 4:36 pm
I don’t have a real problem with IRV or other “ranked” voting procedures instead of “first past the post” for officers, but I prefer approval voting and would certainly oppose changing the at-large voting mechanism from approval to IRV/ranked.
11 robert capozzi // Apr 30, 2009 at 4:39 pm
tk, I hear ya. but: what would do with a David Duke or a Timothy McVeigh…let them represent the LP?
Curious whether your BTP has an expulsion mechanism?
12 Erik Geib // Apr 30, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Michael,
You may be a fan of range voting then. Wiki it some time.
I personally favor IRV, but that’s only because I think alternate systems like range voting encourage ‘voting strategies’ too much, which is the same reason I detest plurality voting. Plus, I think it has the potential to confuse the average idiot. Not that IRV couldn’t confuse the same idiot, but I think range voting might confuse one more.
13 Steven R Linnabary // Apr 30, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I don’t trust the LNC (any LNC, past or future) with the authority to expel members.
Even the racist Sonny Landham?
PEACE
14 Erik Geib // Apr 30, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Michael,
Sorry, I meant Borda Count voting (if you want to vote ‘Top 25′ style like a sports poll). Range is intriguing too though if this is the style you like (though my criticisms remain).
15 Michael Seebeck // Apr 30, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Erik, it definitely is a type of range voting. The difference is that each rank is weighted with points inverse to the number of participants–check out an AP college football poll and you’ll get the idea.
I suppose it could be done so that lowest points wins as well, but it’s the same thing, just the tallying is different.
As I said, I understand it, and I like it, but others most certainly could think differently. My big concern is that the moment one starts throwing arcane math formulas into the Bylaws, things get very crazy very fast. There’s just no reason to do that.
16 Michael Seebeck // Apr 30, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Erik, yeah, that’s exactly it.
17 Thomas L. Knapp // Apr 30, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Bob,
You write:
tk, I hear ya. but: what would do with a David Duke or a Timothy McVeigh…let them represent the LP?
“Being a member of the LP” is not the same as “representing the LP.”
If an expulsion mechanism is needed, then let it be a vote of 7/8ths of the delegates to a national convention or something of that nature.
I don’t trust the LNC with that kind of power — and that’s not simply a function of my dislike of some actions taken by some members of the current LNC, but rather a general view.
“Curious whether your BTP has an expulsion mechanism?”
It’s not “my” BTP, and last time I checked, no, it had no expulsion mechanism.
18 Nicholas Sarwark // Apr 30, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Tom,
Recommendation 31 is there because the Barr campaign still refuses to release the mailing list to the National Party. If you have a better way to avoid that situation pre-nomination that does not have the same potential for abuse, please suggest it.
As to the expulsion provisions, they are specific as to what actions trigger them, which makes it difficult to abuse them. I think the language used is “shall” so it’s not something that the LNC could decide to enforce against one person but not another.
I encourage you to do the whole survey and submit comments.
I would also note that votes to move proposals out of committee do not always mean that the committee supports the proposal so much as it’s clearly written and addresses an issue identified with the current bylaws.
19 Michael Seebeck // Apr 30, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Nicholas, a suggestion on the blog was made on that, that it be a condition of accepting the nomination after the vote, not to filter candidates before the delegates can vote. It is not proper for the LNC to filter candidates out–that is the delegates’ job.
Some of the alleged issues with the current bylaws aren’t issues at all, but solutions in search of a problem. Most of the delegate voting ones fall under that category completely.
20 mdh // Apr 30, 2009 at 6:28 pm
The notion that the LNC should have the ability to expel members and/or officers of affiliate parties is disturbing to a level of absurdity.
The notion that candidates should have to contract with the LNC is likewise one which I would strongly oppose.
If a given individual or group of individuals have issue with a specific candidate based on a contractual dispute, they can feel free to campaign against ssuch candidate(s) at the convention. The decision should, however, ultimately be left to the convention delegates.
21 Nicholas Sarwark // Apr 30, 2009 at 6:31 pm
If a given individual or group of individuals have issue with a specific candidate based on a contractual dispute, they can feel free to campaign against such candidate(s) at the convention. The decision should, however, ultimately be left to the convention delegates.
There was no indication at the convention that Barr would not hand over the mailing list. The issue came up after he had already secured the nomination, at which point the Party had no recourse to obtain the list.
22 volvoice // Apr 30, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Nicholas,
Maybe the LNC could just provide a formal petition and ask the candidates to sign it before the convention. Those that don’t would have to face that position in front of the delegates. I really do not see a need for a bylaw to address this issue. I too am concerned that Bob did not share his list, but I fear that giving the LNC ANY power to address this issue is moving in the wrong direction.
23 Michael Seebeck // Apr 30, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Nicholas, I understand why that proposal is there. I also sympathize with why it was made. The problem with it is that it can pre-empt the delegation selection process and that isn’t right.
24 George Phillies // Apr 30, 2009 at 7:05 pm
The background statement for the “expel” statement claims there were two states where…that’s false, at least the “two” part. The rule also does not work, at least not the way its authors think it does, not to mention, of course, that a sentence ending in “expel” (did my download go bad) is imprecise. Expel from what? the National Committee? the next convention? Claiming the LNC can expel someone from their state officer post is a bit odd as a general claim.
I suspect the people meant they wanted to expel people from the National party, and weren’t up to saying so. Mind you, in the one state (New Hampshire) that did have two candidates, the State Party’s candidate as chosen at the state convention did not have any state party officer signatures involved in ballot access, except of course that the state chair collected a lot of signatures for his party’s slate.
25 volvoice // Apr 30, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Unfortunately the LNC, as an organization, has become like the government. It constantly seeks expansion of its powers and wants to reach into areas that it just has no business. Take the Lee deal, there is an example of members of the LNC claiming to have authority to do things that they do not. These guys are constantly probing the perimeter and looking for weak spots where they can claim jurisdiction. We must be ever vigilant to ensure that the power within the LP lies with the states and not the national party. At every turn we should seek to reduce the power of the State, Uhm, I mean the LNC and work to prevent a top down structure that seeks to control the state parties and their members.
26 volvoice // Apr 30, 2009 at 7:18 pm
If the Bylaws are going to become some kind of construct that gives the LNC all sorts of powers to rule over the state parties and its members then it may be high time for some sort of LP Member Bill of Rights in order to protect us activists against the onslaught of overbearing national control.
27 Robert Capozzi // Apr 30, 2009 at 8:23 pm
tk: If an expulsion mechanism is needed, then let it be a vote of 7/8ths of the delegates to a national convention or something of that nature.
me: I agree that expulsion or something short of that should not be done lightly. I’m sympathetic to your view. Still, tomorrow David Duke could join the LP, put out a press release saying he did, claim that the slavery wasn’t so bad, that it would whither away, state his intent to run for Governor as a L, etc., etc.
This would be unhelpful to the L cause, I’m sure you’d agree. It could not only affect the state LP, but nationally, as Duke is a person of some notoriety. Waiting until the next Convention might be appropriate…I dunno.
Perhaps censure powers?
Truly, I have no opinion…just thinking out loud.
28 Michael Seebeck // Apr 30, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Robert, every governing body of the LP at all levels has censure power right now, and most states can remove the certification or endorsement of any candidate. Disclaiming a set of outlandish statements by a wannabe is kinda covered already–witness that one candidate last cycle–what was his name? Help me out, folks!
29 Chuck Moulton // Apr 30, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Tom Knapp wrote (comment # 10):
I don’t really understand this criticism… especially coming from Knapp.
I’ll repeat my earlier comment from the Seebeck post:
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/lps-seebeck-anatomy-of-a-coup/#comment-59636
STV is the fairest voting system out there. The will of the voters is neither underrepresented nor overrepresented — unlike plurality voting and approval voting which allow 51% of the delegates to get 100% of the representation. STV allows for proportional representation of minority viewpoints.
What is especially crazy about this criticism is that radicals are the minority in the LP — at least, judging from the nomination of Barr. The people on the bylaws committee opposing this proposal are the very people Seebeck accuses of trying to takeover the LP with the change. They outright said they opposed the proposal because they wanted 51% of the voters to get 100% of the representation.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
30 Chuck Moulton // Apr 30, 2009 at 11:54 pm
George Phillies wrote (comment #7):
Can you elaborate on that or provide a citation? I would like to better understand your objections.
Are you saying ranked choice voting is inferior to IRV? Or that both are inferior to majority voting with multiple rounds? I had assumed that IRV and ranked choice were essentially equivalent, which is why I allowed myself to be pressured into withdrawing my IRV proposal and endorsing the ranked choice proposal.
As for your last assertion, is the idea that coalition making and bargaining can occur between rounds with the status quo (majority voting with multiple rounds) but cannot occur when the entire voting derives from one ballot as in ranked choice?
31 Chuck Moulton // Apr 30, 2009 at 11:56 pm
George Phillies wrote (comment # 24):
I believe the implicit reference was to Arizona in 2000 and New Hampshire in 2008. Are you saying New Hampshire should not be put in that category?
32 Michael Seebeck // May 1, 2009 at 1:13 am
Chuck, if I can’t understand it with my math degree, and if the average delegate can’t understand it, and the current system is NOT broken, then there is no reason for it, except to use the Bylaws and delegates as guinea pigs for some pet method of voting. There is no place in convention or the organization for that malarkey.
33 Michael Seebeck // May 1, 2009 at 1:15 am
It ain’t broken. Don’t fix it until it is. It’s that simple!
34 Thomas L. Knapp // May 1, 2009 at 2:52 am
Chuck,
I’m not sure where you thought you saw a “criticism” in the comment of mine you quoted. I prefer approval voting to IRV/ranked voting. That’s not a criticism, that’s a statement of my preferences.
That said, I believe that your “51% of the voters getting 100% of the representation” claim relies on some pretty far out assumptions. It assumes that each and every delegate will affiliate with one of two factions, and that each and every delegate will then inevitably vote his or her faction’s slate without exceptions.
I don’t see the factional lines as being quite so clearly drawn. There are more than two factions, and there are factions of more than two kinds. Furthermore, in a party as small as ours, personal relationships and acquaintances play a role.
To the extent that approval voting might allow for more of a “clean sweep” by one faction than IRV/ranked voting, I don’t see that as always and necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes spraying air freshener is enough, sometimes you have to go in and shovel all the shit out of the stable.
35 George Phillies // May 1, 2009 at 7:41 am
@31 writes”I believe the implicit reference was to Arizona in 2000 and New Hampshire in 2008. Are you saying New Hampshire should not be put in that category?”
I know it will be a strain, but you should try reading the report before you ask questions like this.
The report discusses avoiding the problems we had in one state in 2000 and two states in 2008.
Arizona was not a problem in 2008.
And for the tone of your question, thank you for reminding me of why I discouraged people for voting for you in 2008, and why I will continue to do so in the future.
36 robert capozzi // May 1, 2009 at 10:21 am
George, help us understand what you mean by “tone,” because I am not feelin’ one.
Sounds like Chuck may be another in what appears to be a long list of personna non gratas for you. Consider telling him what it would take for him to earn your support…we might all benefit from this knowledge.
37 Chuck Moulton // May 1, 2009 at 10:27 am
George Phillies wrote (comment # 35):
My apologies… my recollection of the report was incorrect. Having read it through in its entirety 10 times before, I skipped an additional read before commenting — that was clearly a mistake.
George Phillies wrote (comment # 35):
I’m not sure what you meant by tone in this context. I was simply trying to gather more information. Can’t please everyone without remaining silent I guess.
38 Melty // May 1, 2009 at 11:22 am
As for the Instant Runoff idea . . .
It says in line e. that none-of-the-above shall survive each round. That’s good, because elimination & reallocation methods requiring all candidates to be ranked (as is done in some parts of Australia) are very undesirable. So line e. lets you put only those you want on your ballot. Fine, but this creates a problem with line a., where it says a majority is neccessary for election. By not discarding incomplete ballots (a good thing) you make majority failure not a remote possibility, but an eventuality. A voting method failing to yield a majority where there is none is nothing bad, but IRV proponents always tout “guarantees a majority” for some some reason. Well, it oftentimes does not (especially not in San Fran), because, by the end of the process, some ballots have nothing but eliminated candidates on them. So, as the language of the proposal stands, the convention election day comes that nobody gets a majority and there is no stated recourse for getting someone elected. Then what happens at the convention?
This is a trite glitch. Other things Instant Runoff proponents tout are also false. Among the big drawbacks of Instant Runoff are the great cost in time and money and sacrifice in transparency, all because of the elaborate elimination/reallocation algorithm in the count.
Leave a Comment