CV&D position? (was Re: Parliamentary vs Presidential)

[Steve Eppley]

Ed Still wrote:
>CV&D is not "myopically focussing on the parliamentary form (with
>prop rep" as the 'only' way to get rid of the two party system...."
>If you mean that CV&D is supporting the parliamentary system to
>replace Congress, you are wrong.  CV&D has taken no position on
>that.
-snip-

But isn't that the de facto effect of CV&D's actions?  By
de-emphasizing single-winner reform and concentrating so heavily on
prop rep for legislatures, CV&D is setting aside the problem of the
two-party executive branch and Senate.  How about dealing with it?

Perhaps it's wrong for me to treat the outspoken CV&D members with
whom I'm familiar, in particular Rob Ritchie, as being synonomous 
with CV&D.  But again, it's the effect that counts.

How does one go about contacting all the CV&D board members to make
a pitch for more single-winner effort?  How does one get ahold of 
CV&D's official procedure and policy documents?

---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)