[EM] Posting #2: intro, a plea, LWV, organizing v. IRV, terms & taxonomy

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Joe Weinstein wrote:

(3)  LWV
 >
 > It's hard to imagine that an organization with the cachet of LWV 
circulates
 > position papers only in non-e modes;

They have a website too. For a long time it had articles promoting IRV,
but the IRVie-majority study-committee refused to allow any Approval
material on the website. Now they've taken down the IRV promotion from
the website, and apparently they believe that that makes right the
fact that they had it up all that time while refusing any Approval
articles.

Yes, they have printed material too, and it's just as ridiculously
biased as the website was. The study materials for the voting
systems study are a blatant IRV tract. To cite just one instance,
at the end of the study guide is a workbook, where the local chapters
are intended to write in their answers to certain "consensus questions".
The workbook asks how the various PR methods & systems do according
to the various criteria that the study guide listed. But, inexplicitly,
the workbook doesn't ask us to rate the single-winner methods by
criteria. It couldn't be, could it, that the IRVies who run the
study committee have heard how poorly IRV does by criteria? So, then,
what do our LWV study committee IRVies ask us about single winner
methods in the workbook? They ask: Should a single-winner method
always elect someone who has a majority of the votes?

We've talked here about the fallacious, imaginary majority that
IRV offers. These LWV IRVies have the incredible blatant gall to
use a promotional claim for a particular single-winner method as
the study's only single-winner method question in the workbook.
First they tell us all that IRV guarantees a majority winner. Then
their only single-winner question is: Should a single-winner method
always elect someone who gets a majority of the votes? Subtle it isn't.

Aside from the impropriety of basing the only single-winner question
on their promotional claim for a particular method, there's the added
fact that the claim is fallacious.

I suggest a better question:  Should voters ever have strategic
incentive to dump their favorite by voting someone else over her/him?

If you're in LWV, take part in the study. If you're not in LWV, join
so that you can. And advocate that your local chapter write their
own workbook questions.

 > Bart, please indicate what you would have us Californians do re LWV -
 > actions, contacts, etc. - and maybe I can do some of it.

I'm not Bart, but let me answer that anyway:

1. Join LWV.
2. Join your local voting system study committee.
3. Write or (better) e-mail to LWV's state board of directors about
   the bizarre but plentiful improprieties that you'll find in the
   IRVie study committee's study materials.

(Don't bother writing to the state study committee. It's a waste of
time).

4. Bring the improprieties to the attention of the other members of
   your local chapter's study committee, and e-mail to the other
   local chapters around the state.
5. Find out how to join the national LWV mailing list. I think it's
   called LWV topics. Of course you must be an LWV member to join.
   It's a mailing list where there's lots of debate, and I've been told
   that it would be a good place to discuss the improprieties in
   Calif. LWV's study.
6. There's a state mailing list too, but it's moderated, and I don't
   think it's as debate-oriented. More for business, I guess. I haven't
   joined either list yet.
7. If Calif. LWV does what it looks like it's going to do, and
   pushes IRV through via its many study improprieties, and IRV thereby
   gets the LWV recommendation in Calif., then you should talk to
   everyone about it. Letters to the editor, call-in shows, every way
   that you can find to publicize the sleaze and illegitimacy of this
   so-called study.

Mike Ossipoff


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com