CVD wants Alt.V to be fairer but it isn't: misleading website

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Demorep wrote:

CVD is more than a little unhappy with Plurality (FPP) (i.e. minority rule
for single winner offices).

I reply:

If CVD genuinely wanted single-winner reform, they wouldn't be pushing
IRV.


Demorep continues:

U.S.A. voters are rather simple minded regarding math due to the massively
rotten public schools.

I reply:

Using Condorcet doesn't require any math. Anyone can rank their
choices.

Demorep continues:

Thus, Condorcet (head to head) math is somewhat difficult for lots of
ex-public school folks

I reply:

Nothing difficult about ranking our choices.

Demorep wrote:

The resulting uproar may produce some immediate and very serious movement 
for
election method reforms for such office (and thus other offices such as 
state
governor, city mayors, etc.)-- i.e. the EM list should try and get its act
together as an semi-emergency matter.

I reply:

But we don't agree on what our act should be. That's the trouble.
I've often said, refering to CVD's cowboy behavior, that single-winner
reform advocates should get their act together before taking it on
the road. But the IRVies chose to take our disagreements to the
people instead of settling them among ourselves.

So what would EM do if its act were together? Would we fight IRV
in a united way? Good, then let's do so. Join LWV. You too, Demorep.
And write to Alaska's Republican Party, & tell them that Condorcet
or Approval would be a big improvement over their IRV proposal. And
Approval is so much easier to propose & implement.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.