Appeal versus national committee vacancy
Y'all,
This forum topic is an appeal under Article 9, Section h of the bylaws:
Any action of the National Committee may be appealed by Party members comprising 5 or more party members, said appeal to be transmitted or called to the attention of both the Chair and the Secretary. In the case of such appeal, the appeal shall be published to the Party's web site and the Party's membership shall be polled on the question of whether to sustain or uphold the Committee's action to suspend. The poll shall open within 10 days of the appeal's publication, and shall remain open for 10 days. The National Committee's action shall be overturned by a vote of 2/3 or more among voting members.
As the section says, such an appeal requires the support of five party members to become operant. I'm the first. I request the support of four others, to be rendered by commenting as follows: "I join this appeal."
The act of the national committee under appeal is the committee's act of constituting itself with three, rather than the required four, at-large members.
The relief sought is nomination and election of the required fourth at-large committee member under the same rules as those in Article 9, Section e (which applies to vacancies created by suspension of members).
Once the appeal becomes operant with the support of five party members, it will take 2/3 (of those voting) to overturn the committee's decision to constitute itself minus one member, after which (if the appeal succeeds), a fourth at-large committee member will be nominated and elected.
Some supporting argument:
- The bylaws require that national committee members be members of the party. To the best of my knowledge, None of the Above is not a party member.
- The bylaws require that candidates for at-large positions on the national committee be nominated and seconded, and that they accept the nomination. To the best of my knowledge, NOTA was not nominated, was not seconded, and did not accept the nomination for an at-large position on the national committee.
- The national committee handled the elections as best they could, given the means at their disposal. The bylaws call for election of at-large national committee members by approval voting.
Unfortunately, Drupal's native poll functionality does not support approval voting and the "Advanced Polling" module which we used in 2008 was offline for some time after Drupal evolved to version 6.x.
This meant that "approval voting" had to be simulated with a separate poll for each candidate, and somehow NOTA mistakenly got worked into the mix.
"Advanced Polling" is now available in beta for Drupal 6.x. I have installed it on the party's web site so that future at-large elections can be done in one poll via true approval voting (note to admins: Choose "binary poll" and under poll settings select "no limit" under "maximum choices").
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Update, 1935 Central Time, 06/07: The chair has acknowledged the appeal and indicated his intent to "set up a poll." I don't know if the poll is a poll on the appeal (2/3 of voting members to require the vacancy be filled), or whether it's actually to fill the vacancy. If the latter, presumably we'll see a nominations forum topic, etc. Thanks to everyone who supported this appeal.





Comments
southernpatriot:
The poll failed to get a 2/3 majority as required by the bylaws.
Jethro:
I support the petition.
Synergy011235813:
I support this appeal as well!
I lost a lot of respect for the Boston Tea Party after their deceptive actions to thwart the Resource Based Economy Caucus. BTP has begun to resemble the two parties it was erected as a distinct alternative to, in respect to censorship of alternative ideas regardless of their popularity.
Zeraius:
I support this appeal. Sorry for the late reply, but I don't have access to the net every day. I hope this goes through, as my vote was one of those not counted previously due to the strange voting practices on this site.
Eric St. Pierre:
I support the petition.
southernpatriot:
A poll has been created http://bostontea.us/node/867 on appeal (2/3 of voting members to require the vacancy be filled).
southernpatriot:
It will be a poll on the appeal (2/3 of voting members to require the vacancy be filled)
southernpatriot:
I acknowledge this appeal and will set up a poll as soon as possible.
Todd Andrew Barnett:
Darryl,
I am working on fielding a candidate for the fourth seat. Since Neil decided to make a deal out of this matter (I'll go into that b.s. shortly), a real pro-liberty candidate should be allowed to run for that seat in opposition to other candidates who are nothing but opportunists working to subvert the ideas and message of the BTP.
While I formally object to this appeal, I'll go along with it, as I welcome another election to grab a possible left-libertarian on the seat.
I've already announced this on my FB profile, and I'm urging people to run for this spot now.
For the record, I oppose Neil's re-election run at every turn.
VTV:
Hey Todd, remember this?
http://bostontea.us/node/615
From Todd:
“The first poll was a disaster. It went on longer than it should have, and technically I lost that election at the time when the poll should have closed but didn’t.”
I sure remember it.
Todd Andrew Barnett:
Neil:
Knowing that you're a statist spinmeister (meaning you like to spin your side of the story to demonize those who disagree with you ideologically, intellectually, and politically) and the pablum that you spew on here is not pro-Liberty by a long shot, I'm going to respond with several brief points. To do this, I will quote what you said, and then I will respond.
"Hey Todd, remember this?"
Yes, I do remember writing that. But that was an entirely different situation, and you know it. At the time I wrote it, I wrote it with thinking back in hindsight that that election (in which I was running for Secretary of the BTP at the time) failed to close on the day and time it was meant to close. That was a mistake on the chair's part, but it wasn't a deliberate, conspiracy-laden act done out of malice. You spin it that way to make it sound like it was a conspiracy to tamper with and "fraudulently" have an election with me having knowledge at the time it was happening. That's a bullshit lie, and you damn well know it.
Also, in hindsight, I came to the conclusion that I lost the election "technically," but at the time when that election was under way, I didn't know I WAS losing. I realized this AFTER the election, not while the voting process was STILL in effect. You portrayed me as a liar during that fiasco -- a fiasco which was not my fault. And yet you never had any proof. Just baseless accusations that couldn't be proven, even if you tried.
But then again, what do we expect from a technocratic state socialist such as yourself?
"I sure remember it."
Suuuure you do.
On the other hand, this is a par-for-the-course comment from a par-for-the-course technocratic state socialist...that is to say, YOU.
VTV:
Gee Todd.
You thought you deserved another shot after you lost to none of the above for Secretary. Even when you knew you lost the election fair and square you let us believe no one knew for sure.
It's interesting the hypocrisy this election is exposing.
Todd Andrew Barnett:
"Gee Todd."
Gee dingus.
"You thought you deserved another shot after you lost to none of the above for Secretary. Even when you knew you lost the election fair and square you let us believe no one knew for sure."
I never said I "deserved another shot." I NEVER, EVER said such a thing. Another bullshit lie, which we both know to be the truth (meaning you're a liar and not a saint).
For the record, Neil, I "technically" lost that race. Despite the mistake on the part of the chair, I won it. The membership, by and large, didn't object to the matter (except for you, that is). I didn't hear the party members yelling from the rooftops going, "Oh no! Todd Andrew Barnett won an election that he knew he lost!" They accepted it right there.
In many ways, I wish I had never ran for that race, simply because I didn't have the time to do the job. But I did it leading me to doing the work of the position at the bare minimum. It is what it is, Neil. Just shut up about it and move on from it.
"It's interesting the hypocrisy this election is exposing."
Yes, it is interesting, considering the source of that hypocrisy is coming from your Venus Project-loving, technocratic state socialism-worshiping ass.
If you have a problem with that, too bad. It's not my problem; it's yours. Own it and move on.
VTV:
Just a note. Rayzer is also a mainstream Libertarian.
inDglass:
I'm not sure what defines a "maintsream Libertarian," but how about this: regardless of labels, just read the platform, and either stick to it or go find another party.
VTV:
I do support the platform. The issue is that the platform says nothing about free market economics. So our position does not violate the platform in the slightest.
I M Supertramp:
I join this Appeal. I also support the RBE caucus.
rayzer:
I join this appeal.
AFHeretic:
I give my support to this petition.
This is important as it is per the laws of this party and an RBE Caucus's goals are in accords with the US Constituion.
xchainlinkx:
I am of full support of this appeal. We need change now, and the current institutions won't provide that.
Okoth45:
I join this appeal. In support of the RBE caucus.
Crosis:
I support the petition .
ALivingSight:
I support the petition.
kbrekken:
I support this appeal. The ideas of a RBE are too important to ignore.
Corvinex:
I join this appeal. Those involved know there were unethical things involved so some would not get their voice heard.
LibertyUnleashed:
As a free market "libertarian" I truly believe that actions withholding an election looks bad for the party. I support this petition.
Bryan Siemon
VTV:
I hereby support this appeal. The national committee should not be able to simply decide to leave a vacancy to be sure that only the candidates they approve of are available.
cider:
I support this petition.
Marino:
I support this petition. A free market leads to monopolies and cartels.
Zack Zero:
I support the petition.
Eric St. Pierre:
I support the petition