Monday, June 21, 2010

Lies, Damn Lies, and the National Popular Vote

Some attention is being paid in Delaware to the National Popular Vote, which is being promoted by It has passed the House of Representatives as HB198 and is currently before the Senate Executive Committee. With any luck it will stay there, but between the wall of text comments left on a press release mentioning the bill and the calls placed on behalf of the bill by Advantage Research it is clear that a great deal of money is being spent on a classic example of Groucho Marx political problem solving:

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

(UPDATE: HB198 Has passed the Senate Executive Committee.)

Proponents correctly argue that the "Winner Take All" system is ineffective at spreading candidate attention during presidential races, as states such as Delaware are considered "safe" and offer no benefit to the expenditure of limited campaign resources. They offer as a remedy an interstate compact whereby at least as many states as can constitute 270 electoral votes agree to follow the lead of a national popular vote and offer all of their electoral votes to that candidate regardless of their local voting totals.

Since the 2000 election, where the winner of the popular vote lost the electoral vote to a president who proved to be highly controversial, the electoral college has seemed an opaque and anachronistic mechanism for selecting the leader of our nation. In order to understand its value, it is important first to consider the nature of our Constitutional Federal Government.

The Federal Government is an organization created by the original 13 states following the Revolutionary War and the inability of the Articles of Confederation to adequately provide for the prosperity of the newly independent states. The Constitution delegated some of the powers the states held as sovereign entities to the Federal Government, so as to provide for common defense and what was essentially a free trade union. One of the ways the states preserved their independence was by charging their state governments with choosing the electors who would select the president.

The president was never intended to be the powerful leader of the American people he has become today. He was intended to be the Commander in Chief of the military, when under federal authority, but otherwise only to serve as the executive of the laws passed by congress to carry out the Federal Government's limited constitutional responsibilities. Article II, Section 1 empowers state legislatures to select their electors in any manner which they see fit. Proponents of a National Popular Vote assert that the "Winner Take All" system used by many states does not offer any incentive for candidates to campaign in more than a few states, but fail to mention the numerous alternatives to a National Popular Vote which would have a much greater impact on an individual state's influence in presidential elections.

The Constitution guarantees that each state will have a minimum amount of influence in the electoral college based on the minimum number of representatives and senators from that state. In Delaware, this means we control 3/535 or about 0.5% of the electoral college votes but only 885122/309558000 or about 0.28% of the popular vote. I believe that rather than surrendering much of our limited influence on presidential elections by acquiescing to a National Popular Vote, we should instead seek out new and creative ways of exercising the greater influence of our electoral college as an example to other states of our sovereignty and out respect for the intentions of our founding fathers.

Alternatives include proportional representation, county representation, or even the random selection of registered voters to encourage civic participation and engagement with the political processes of the state.

Please contact your senators and inform them of your opposition to HB198 and the National Popular Vote!

Senate Membership

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Kent County Libertarian Party, June Press Release

Continuing the recent trend, the turnout at the Kent County Libertarian Party meeting for June grew from our May total of around 20 people to more than 30. Please help us to continue this astonishing growth by telling your friends, coworkers, and neighbors about our meetings and the opportunity they provide each resident of Kent County to become more involved in their local political process and to hold our elected officials accountable to their constituents instead of their favorite special interests.

By far the most pressing of the items discussed at the June meeting was the bylaws draft for the Kent County Libertarian Party. Included in these bylaws are a transparent and open process for spending the money raised on behalf of the Kent County Libertarians. The bylaws also codify a typical agenda for the monthly meetings and lay a solid groundwork for establishing similarly open and transparent processes for carrying out all of the activities of the County Party. These bylaws will be ratified, and the nominated Executive Committee members, Richard Bieker, Jeff Munn, and Richard Cook will be confirmed at the next monthly meeting on July 20th. Please review these bylaws on the forums, offer any suggestions or questions, and prepare to vote on the 20th.

Much of the meeting's agenda was booked up with Guest Speakers. We were privileged to have three candidates in attendance. Norman Wood, the Democratic candidate for Kent County Sheriff came and gave a brief presentation on his plans should he be elected. He addressed the lack of arresting authority held by the Kent County Sheriff and discussed the need to update their communications technology to avoid interfering with cell phone transmissions, among other issues. Ron Poliquin, a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 31st State Representative District came and discussed his record of fighting for taxpayers against the establishment and some of his plans for saving money on a state level before taking questions from the audience. Christine O'Donnell, a candidate for the Republican nomination to the US Senate was also present and offered her views on the current state of our country and the steps she believes are necessary to remedy them. While she was eager to appeal to those in attendance currently registered in the Republican Party, she was also respectful of the Libertarian Party's candidate for US Senate, Jim Rash.

The candidate presentations went on longer than expected and unfortunately crowded out some other items on the agenda for the month, but Tim Pancoast was still able to make an informative presentation on the changes being considered to the Delaware History Curriculum. Under the veneer of providing "balance", a commission of union leaders has been assembled to modify the curriculum. Tim and the assembled membership of the Kent County Libertarian Party wonder what balance can be offered without the inclusion of business leaders, economists, and historians on this panel. Tim also discussed a new initiative to expand the school breakfast program using a one-time injection of stimulus dollars from the federal government. In addition to further expanding the role of the schools in raising our children at the expense of the parents' relationship, this program demonstrates the short-term thinking and big-spending tendencies of a government taking advantage of a short-term increase in revenues with no thought or planning for the future after these funds are no longer available. Tim encouraged everyone assembled to get in contact with their legislators to voice their concerns on these changes.

Jesse McVay was also able to make a presentation on HB198, the National Popular Vote bill currently before the Senate Executive Committee. This bill has been promoted heavily by organizations outside of Delaware through the Advantage Research Corporation under misleading pretenses. Without further information available to their staff, Advantage Research has been portraying HB198 as an effective mechanism for expanding Delaware's influence in the presidential process by effectively abolishing the electoral college. Rather than the 0.5% influence Delaware holds by virtue of its 3 electoral votes, the National Popular Vote would reduce Delaware's influence to approximately 0.2% in proportion with Delaware's share of the national population. Jesse encouraged all members of the Kent County Libertarian Party to contact their legislators and voice their opposition to this bill as well as warn them of the deceptive manner in which it is being promoted by its supporters.

Please remember that the next monthly meeting will be held on July 20th at the same time and place. Please contact Will McVay, the Kent County Chair, with any suggestions or questions for the next meeting or any other issues.

Thank you for your supporting the Kent County Libertarian Party!

Will McVay
Kent County Chair,
Delaware Libertarian Party

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

A Real Change in Congress

Reposted from Brent Wangen's Blog.

Let us not forget that those of us that are upset with the current state of the United States have two parties to blame. Flipping the switch to a burnt out light bulb does nothing to illuminate a dark room. We must change the bulb! Our current bulb was extinguished almost one hundred and fifty years ago, and our nation has been kept in the dark by a failed two party system. Time to put in a new bulb; it is time for a return to the principles that illuminated this great nation at its birth. Limited Federal Government operating within the confines of the Constitution is the answer to today’s problems.

Our legislative branch was set up with two houses, the House of Representatives (the voice of the people “to” the Federal Government) and the Senate (the voice of the States “to” the Federal Government). In 1913 the States voice was removed by the 17th amendment to the Constitution, and States have lost their voice to protect States rights. The Senate has the power to do two very important things; confirmations of Supreme Court Justices and cabinet officials, and ratifying treaties. Ask yourself this question; why were these powers given to the Senate? Answer: As representatives for the States they would ensure that States rights were adhered to and that the Federal Government would not overstep its boundaries set by the 9th and 10 amendments. Alas today we have Representatives and Senators that no longer believe they are representatives “to” the Federal Government but “of” the Federal Government.

I urge you to seek out ‘NEW’ blood, people not tainted by party politics, people that understand the Constitution and want to follow it. Do not follow the parties that push for “Elite” or “Insiders” as their parties’ candidates. Delaware has, throughout history, been a first in many ways. Delaware was the first to declare independence from England, and the first state to ratify the Constitution for the United States. Now in 2010 Delaware has a chance to be the first once again by electing a third party candidate and sending a message to the rest of the U.S., that message: the Constitution is the Solution!

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Libertatrian Party Takes Off in Delaware

Three months ago, there was no Kent County Chair of the Delaware Libertarian Party. Three months ago, there were only three or four people at the most coming to the monthly Kent County Libertarian meetings at the Touchdown Lounge in south Dover. Three months ago, there had never been more than one or two candidates fighting a quixotic campaign against the Democratic and Republican dominance of the Delaware political scene.

But this year is not like every other year. This year, Democrats in Washington have expanded the budget and scope of the US Government to unprecedented levels. This year, the Republican party is fractured by eight years of George W. Bush and a similarly out of control level of government spending and interference in the everyday lives of US citizens and Delaware residents.

This year, the Libertarian Party, and the libertarian movement, is exploding.

Now, the Kent County Libertarian meetings have grown too large for the single room in the Touchdown Lounge which we used to meet in. We have established a county level party finance committee with the State of Delaware and opened a bank account to handle fundraising and support for Kent County candidates. We are inviting candidates from every party to come to our meetings and try to convince us that they are worthy of the Libertarian vote.

We are also running our own candidates. We've been called spoilers. We've been told we don't stand a chance of winning and only detract from the (insert party name) party's chances, or that we're "stealing" their votes. The votes belong to the people. John Quincy Adams said that you should, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." We will show the two parties the votes they are missing out on. We will show them the government we want. We will show them the politicians we want. And they will listen, or they will lose.

We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take this, anymore!

If you're mad too, then look into the Delaware Libertarian Party and the candidates that we have nominated for public office in the state of Delaware. If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always got. Do something different, and vote for freedom. Thank you.

The Delaware Libertarians have nominated the following candidates for the 2010:

Jim Rash for US Senate:
Brent Wangen for US House:
Matthew Flebbe for DE House District #6:
Scott Gesty for DE House District #7:
James Christina for DE House District #12
George Barnett for DE House District #15
Will McVay for DE House District #32:
Joseph O'Leary for New Castle Sheriff
Jesse McVay for Kent County Recorder of Deeds
Timothy Webb for Kent County Levy Court District #2

National Libertarian Party:
Libertarian Party of Delaware:
Kent County Libertarian Party Forums:

Monday, June 7, 2010

California's TopTwo Ballot Initiative: Possibly The Most Frightening Assault on Liberty in Our Lifetime

This Tuesday,  June 8, California voters will decide on Proposition 14, a ballot measure commonly referred to as Top Two.  The proposition calls for a single, open primary in which all candidates compete regardless of party affiliation, and all voters are eligible to cast a ballot.  Then, only the top two vote getters compete in the general election.  Proponents of Proposition 14 claim it will reduce partisanship, and increase voter participation.  Opponents dispute those claims citing results in Louisiana and Washington state where Top Two systems have been in effect.

Clearly, the worst feature of Proposition 14 is one that its advocates fail to mention at all.  If only the top two candidates go on to compete in the general election, third party candidates will essentially  be eliminated from general elections.  This proposal does not reform the election process as it claims.  It undermines it by reducing choice.  It may arguably expand primary participation, but only at a cost of extinguishing healthy, democratic competition  in the general election; the one that counts. 

The driving force behind this ballot initiative is collusion between the two major parties, the Republicans and the Democrats.  It is a shady deal with the goal of stifling debate and cementing the power of the major parties.  It is a shameful attempt to muzzle the potential voices of real change so that only the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum views of the major parties can be heard in the debate.

What are they afraid of?  If they have better ideas, why try to stifle competition?  The answer is they worry that the public has had enough of business as usual.  Instead of competing fairly on an open field of ideas, they want to stack the deck in their favor.

And since incumbent politicians are responsible for Prop 14, they get to write the ballot summary that goes out to potential voters.  Here's how those politicians, greedily pursuing their own self interest, have described the ballot proposal:

Ballot title and label: "Elections. Increases Right to Participate in Primary Elections." Reforms the primary election process for congressional, statewide, and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference.
Official summary: Encourages increased participation in elections for congressional, legislative, and statewide offices by reforming the procedure by which candidates are selected in primary elections. Gives voters increased options in the primary by allowing all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Provides that candidates may choose not to have a political party preference indicated on the primary ballot. Provides that only the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference. Does not change primary elections for President, party committee offices and nonpartisan offices.

What they do tell you sounds pretty good on the surface.  What they don't tell you constitutes the greatest threat to our liberties and the democratic system that I have seen in my lifetime.  This has got to be the most egregious example of Orwellian Doublespeak I have ever heard. 

I urge those of you in California to vote NO on Proposition 14.  For those of you who are not Californians, beware.  What has been proposed in California could be coming to your state next.

For more information, go to StopTopTwo.Org, or go to

Jess McVay

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Pennwood Outreach and the 9-12 Delaware Patriots

I spent most of yesterday afternoon canvassing the Pennwood development off of State St., inviting residents to join the Kent County Libertarian Party at Uno's for the June monthly meeting and fundraiser. I probably picked the wrong time of the day to go out on a weekday. I assume that a lot of people were still at work, while it was my last day off following the Libertarian National Convention in St. Louis. Those who were home were mostly welcoming and glad to receive the invitation, though I'm sure more than a few were apprehensive about opening the door to a strange, young, male. Even though I got a lot of help from my campaign treasurer, aka my mom, I didn't manage to cover the entire neighborhood before I had to call it quits and get ready for the 9-12 Delaware Patriots Kent County meeting. I'll be going back to hit up the houses I missed and the ones where no one answered this weekend to make sure that everyone knows about our meeting. Hopefully over the course of the next few months I'll be able to recruit more volunteers so that as I canvas other neighborhoods it will take less time. This is a wonderful example of the Haitian proverb that "Many hands lighten the load." (Contact me or post to the comments if you're willing to help out!)

The 9-12 Delaware Patriots meeting was a wonderful experience and I certainly look forward to the next one. The Republican candidate for the At-Large seat on the Kent County Levy Court did not especially impress me with his libertarian credentials, any unique ideas for improving the coordination between county, city, and state governments, or for reducing the size and cost of all three, so I will be trying extra hard over the next couple weeks to recruit a Libertarian candidate to run against him. There's no reason we should give the Ds and Rs a free ride if we don't have to.

Michelle Rollins, candidate for the Republican nomination to the House of Representatives, also made an appearance. She played very well to her audience when questioned about health care, but dodged a question about unconstitutional Federal agencies and stepped in it a bit when asked about immigration. Her comments demonstrated a lack of appreciation for the sentiments of her audience and a lack of familiarity with Article I, Section 8.15 of the Constitution which provides the authority for Congress to call out the militia to enforce the laws of the Union and repel invasions, nor with Article I, Section 8.4, which empowers them to set uniform rules of naturalization. Immigration is an important part of the American economy, demography, and history, but this is one of the few areas where the Federal Government may legitimately exercise its authority by enforcing legal standards but is neglecting to do so. The immigration question is, of course, much more complicated than simply sending everyone home, as the welfare benefits and warped employment laws encouraging them to return and Americans to stay on unemployment will create an endless cycle of migration and deportation, but that discussion is for another time.

I was privileged to be able to announce the Kent County Libertarian Party meeting to the group and had a very productive discussion with a number of the attendees regarding the Libertarian Party and our candidates in the November election. It was definitely a rewarding experience overall and I look forward to the next meeting on the 16th of June. For more information, check out their website at:

Libertarian Party National Convention

Reposted from the Kent County Libertarian Party Forums

I will be attending the Libertarian National Convention as a delegate from the Delaware state party. I will be serving in this capacity along with my parents and Jim Rash, the state chair. Among other things, I will be voting on behalf of all Delaware Libertarians on the new LNC Chair (the national head of the party) as well as changes to the platform and the bylaws. See the following links for more details on each of these:


LNC Chair Candidates (alphabetical):
Ernie Hancock -
Mark Hinkle -
John Jay Myers -
George Phillies -
Wayne Root -

The convention runs from Friday, May 28th through Sunday, May 29th. I'll post information about any other relevant matters as a reply to this thread, so watch the thread if you are interested in getting updates! Please reply to this thread yourself if you have any thoughts on the LNC race or the platform/bylaw changes and I'll be sure to take them under advisement.

So, there was an AWFUL lot of voting on what seemed like very silly motions at today's convention meeting. Among the votes were a vote to rename what used to be called "sessions" to "meetings" if that gives you an idea. There were delegates who voted against that change. We also voted on whether or not to vote. There were an awful lot of those. Theoretically, each vote should have taken no more than 18 minutes each, if that, as 8 minutes were allotted for the original vote, and should the measure fail, there were 10 minutes allotted to offer amendments and then vote again on the measure following any amendments.

There was much drama over whether voting on a measure which had not been successfully amended was repetitious or "in order". We finally concluded that voting against a measure's original wording may in fact mean that we intended to vote for an amended wording, but when the amended wording failed, we could vote again on the original wording if it was "good enough". It is enough to frustrate anyone, and gives meaning to "voting for it before voting against it."

That being said, lost deep within the procedural votes and bickering over points of parliamentary procedure, the business of the 2010 Libertarian National Convention was being done. Thanks to a number of time extensions, recesses, and points of order, many of the proposed bylaw changes were not actually addressed by the convention. It is possible that we will vote to "suspend the rules" and consider some of the changes which were not addressed today, but the impatience of the delegates and disorganized fashion in which we so often conduct ourselves will likely prohibit many from being considered, and will interrupt our considerations of the platform as well.

Many of these issues could be avoided by better communication between delegates before the convention opens. The committee reports were issued at least a month ago, delegates have been registered for weeks. With a little bit of coordination and organization, the delegates could have agreed among the various camps and factions which measures should be opposed, which should be amended, and which should be passed. As it is, measures were amended in a haphazard fashion without one faction knowing what the other was doing, and needless disagreement and infighting over process prevented the consideration of a number of valuable changes.

I have considered this convention to be largely an educational and networking experience. That has certainly been the case. Before my next convention, I will know of a number of delegates which I will certainly contact beforehand to solicit their input on each measure under consideration. We will attempt to predict and develop objections, plan amendments, and identify influential speakers within the convention who will be able to help implement a more organized and successful convention strategy. With a little luck and a little forethought, we should be able to get through more of the bylaw and platform changes proposed by the respective committees and present a more organized and less frustrating face to our members and the public.

Today's meetings covered modifications to the Libertarian Party's platform and the election of LNC officers. Many of the delegates seemed to have become more comfortable with the Rules of Order, so there were fewer arguments over petty procedural matters, but there were disagreements on a number of the platform planks which were recommended for amendment by the Platform Committee Report. The election for LNC chair was also a suspenseful process requiring three ballots and finally ended with a closely divided vote between winner Mark Hinkle and Wayne Root.

The most contentious of these issues was the immigration plank. Much of the dispute focused on the wording of one phrase in the committee report regarding public assistance. Libertarians are against the welfare state based on our belief that private charities are better able to care for the poor with less bureaucracy and greater effectiveness. This is another example of the poor organization of the delegates and the amendment process. A more organized and better prepared convention would have been able to find language more accurately reflecting the mood of the delegates.

This also speaks to the complexity of the immigration problem. Immigration would be less of a hot button issue if we had not strayed so far from the constitutional mandate of our government. The welfare state, labor laws, and other immense costs imposed by illegal or unrestricted immigration prevented many delegates from accepting the language currently in the plank. The amending measure proposed by the Platform Committee did not address this language and delegates could not agree on appropriate modifications.

Other delegates continued to focus on the ultimate goals of the libertarian movement which also include dismantling the welfare state and removing the incentives motivating much of the migration of concern to the nation. In concert with the removal of these incentives, many libertarians and many of the delegates continue to hope for the day when strict enforcement of limited immigration laws is not controversial and believe that our platform should reflect that dream. The conflict between the tactics, strategy, and the ultimate goals of the libertarian movement remain at the forefront of the Libertarian Party's activities.

The campaign for the LNC chair was also very contentious. There were originally five candidates:
- John Jay Myers
- Mark Hinkle
- Ernest Hancock
- George Phillies
- Wayne Root

George Phillies, a perennial candidate for LNC chair, was eliminated on the first ballot. John Jay Myers graciously withdrew from the race and encouraged his supporters to vote for Mark Hinkle on successive ballots. The second ballot saw the elimination of Ernest Hancock, and the final ballot resulted in Mark Hinkle's victory over Wayne Root. It is my opinion that this was the optimal resolution of the election. I personally supported John Jay Myers as the candidate concerned the most about grassroots organization and the mobilizing of county chairs and county parties, but consider Mark Hinkle to be the ideal compromise candidate as the most experienced LNC member and least threatening to the libertarian movement.

I certainly admire Ernest Hancock's dedication to the movement, though I had concerns that some of his statements may have lead to alienation of mainstream voters and that his style may have degraded the party's organization. George Phillies was one of my higher preferences coming to the convention, but after conversing with other delegates and learning of his history of running for LNC chair at every convention despite the ease with which he could claim a seat on the LNC indicated to me that his ambition was more about himself than the Libertarian Party or the libertarian movement.

Wayne Root was my last choice. His entire approach struck me as being stereotypical of the slimy politician craving power and attention. His plan for the Libertarian Party also struck me as a path to turning the Libertarian Party into a Republican-lite Party which would alienate disaffected Democrats and prevent us from serving as the neutral arbiter between the left and right which I believe we so desperately need. His promises of funding and support sounded too good to be true considering the alternative routes available to him to PROVIDE that support without the glory and spotlight he was seeking as the LNC chair.

As the remaining officer and at large LNC delegate elections play out, I hope that we are able to create an LNC able to represent all factions of our party and create the unity we need to stand strong against the two party system.

Yesterday we wrapped up the elections for party officers and today we are continuing elections for LNC At-Large members and Judicial Committee members. I believe we succeeded as well as could be hoped in the elections for LNC officers considering the factionalism apparent in the national party. The strength of Wayne Root's faction was recognized not by electing him to the LNC Chair position, but by electing his ally Mark Rutherford to the Vice-Chair position. The secretary position was given to Alicia Mattson. Rob Power was her opponent, but as it was a largely technical position, Alicia was considered a more proficient candidate. Rob Power's position on the New Path slate of George Phillies also motivated me to prefer Alicia as I had already decided to support the New Path's candidate for treasurer, James Oaksun.

The election for treasurer was a foregone conclusion considering the numerous enemies Aaron Starr had made during his tenure as treasurer. Aaron Starr was perceived as Machiavellian, secretive, as a divisive force in the party despite his limited responsibilities related to FEC filings. Aaron Starr also spent much of the convention during the Bylaws and Platform reports monopolizing the floor and preventing other delegates from participating in the debate. He lost the vote by the highest margin of any of the elections with over 300 votes for James Oaksun and less than 120 for Aaron Starr. A clearer message about the tone the delegates wish the LNC officers to set could not have been sent.

It is my sincere hope and belief that the officers we elected will be able to represent all of the factions in the Libertarian Party and do so in a civil fashion. The more divisive figures from each faction were not elected, and as the At-Large elections close I will post further updates and will continue to encourage each faction to be just disappointed enough that they will be unable to run away with the party before incorporating the input and views of the other factions.

LNC/Judicial Committee
Those at the convention who supported Wayne Root didn't leave empty handed. Wayne Root was elected as an At-Large member of the LNC. It speaks to the decorum and maturity of the Libertarian Party that even those who adamantly opposed his election as LNC Chair were willing to support him as an At-Large member. One such delegate, Nick Sarwark, even gave a nominating speech for him.

I was disappointed that John Jay Myers did not receive enough votes to reach the LNC this time around. He was definitely close, and had the support of the entire Delaware Delegation, but it was not quite enough. The other At-Large members selected were:

- Kevin Knedler
- David Nolan
- Mary Ruwart
- William Redpath

As the LNC Chair for the last two years, Bill Redpath was almost guaranteed to win himself a seat. I did not vote for him in favor of bringing more new blood onto the LNC, but I certainly don't begrudge him a seat considering his tireless efforts, generous contributions, and unquestionable dedication to the party. David Nolan was a founder of the party and creator of the now famous "Nolan Chart", which became "The World's Smallest Political Quiz". We certainly need to retain experience and wisdom on the LNC, and I can think of no finer example of both than David Nolan. Kevin Knedler is someone I am less familiar with, but he had the endorsement and recommendation of the Delaware State Chair, Jim Rash, and was instrumental in the creation of the website and the organization of the Ohio state affiliate party. He had my support and I am glad that he won. Mary Ruwart is another old hand in the Libertarian Party and helped to raise over $55,000 at the banquet on the final evening of the convention. She was also an incumbent member of the LNC and runner up for the 2008 presidential nomination. I am sure that her contributions will be valuable and well received so I gladly supported her also.

I am less comfortable with the balance of power between the party's factions and the number of old-school members of the party elected as At-Large members of the LNC, but I am confident that they will serve the party well. We only kept a couple of incumbents and I am not really familiar enough with which factions these members may represent to make a completely fair evaluation, so we may have done just fine. I'm just less certain than I was yesterday of the officer elections.

The final elections of the convention were those for the party's Judicial Committee. The Judicial Committee is a very important but seldom employed committee within the Libertarian Party. They are responsible for determining when there have been infractions of the party's bylaws and rules and ultimately for preventing a takeover of the Libertarian Party by forces hostile to our message of liberty and responsibility. I was pleased that Nick Sarwark was re-elected. He had made a number of valuable contributions to the debate during the convention and made a strong impression on me as a knowledgeable and reliable libertarian who would serve the party well. Also elected were:

- Lee Wrights
- Bill Hall
- Jim Gray
- Robert Latham
- Bob Sullentrup

Many of these members I am not as familiar with as I would like to be, but I know of Lee Wrights and the numerous contributions he made during the convention, his history of service on the LNC, and his gravitas and respect within the party. I also recognize the contributions that Bob Sullentrup made to the party as secretary and look forward to his service on the Judicial Committee. I really do not know Jim Gray, Robert Latham, or Bill Hall, but I don't know anything detrimental about them either so I will defer to the wisdom of the crowd on their elections. There are supposed to be seven members of the Judicial Committee in total, but there was a tie between Ruth Bennett and Brian Holtz. The votes are being audited to ensure an accurate count of all votes, but Brian Holtz has graciously offered to withdraw his candidacy should the vote count stand. These are the types of people that make me proud to be a member of this party.

The convention has closed, and I'm on my way back to Delaware. I'm definitely re-energized and looking forward to getting back into the fight.