I know it will be a strain, but you should try reading the report before you ask questions like this.

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):

And for the tone of your question

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.

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.

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.

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.

The background statement for the “expel” statement claims there were two states where…that’s false, at least the “two” part.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.