[EM] Action

[Narins, Josh]

A few points, sorry the order is so screwy.

1. I want a 3 line summary, a 1 paragraph summary, a 1 page summary, and the
report, all in .pdf, and I want them yesterday :)

2. I really like the name "VOTER CHOICE". Could we vote on it? :)

3. I could probably translate to .pdf for us (Perl has some create PDF
modules, never tried them, though).

4. I WOULD think, without any clear reason, that we want to avoid parallels
with Eastern Europe, and, to an extent, Australia. E. Europe recently has
placed many of the former Communists in power. Now, the reason the
Communists regained power has nothing to do with the voting system, but, we
shouldn't aim to make that connection in the public's mind (Voting Systems
== Communism). I see no clear reason to avoid OR point to Australia,
personally.

5. RE: Australia's IRV and "Breaking the duopoly"... I don't like the
Duopoly, you don't like it, but the goal is not to break it. The goal is to
enhance voter choice. The results are, and should be, up to the voters. If
they want to turn America into a one-party State, that's their right.

6. I think a good paper will include lots of historical stuff in one two
page section. I may just have an over-fondness for this topic. I do think
the "Hamilton's Math Sucked" and the "National Academy of Sciences answered
all doubts" aspects of the Apportionment story  are relevant. I also think
they are interesting, which is a much more personal assessment.

7. I can't endorse Hager.

8. I think we should not emphasize the way this method would have changed
races in ANY ANY ANY recent races. We should have the data on hand, but we
should not say "See, look, Gore would have won" or "See, look, Clinton would
have lost in 1992". Injecting partisanship might end up working, despite
what I think.


-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Small [mailto:asmall at physics.ucsb.edu]
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 5:09 PM
To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Subject: [EM] Action


Josh's idea of getting the NAS to look at AV is a good one, but as has been
pointed out, good luck in making it happen.

My suggestion:  Let's write up our own report, and blitz media outlets with
press releases on "Scientists for Election Reform Release Report on Flaws
of US Elections."  I have a little experience writing press releases, as I
do the advertising for a local juggling festival/charity fundraiser.  Not
the world's most impressive PR post, but I got enough coverage to boost
turnout 20% this year.

If we send out a few hundred press releases, targeting all of the national
media outlets, as well as local papers in places with IRV initiatives, and
of course Indiana, home of Paul Hager, we're guaranteed to get SOMETHING.
Many of us are scientists, engineers, mathematicians, or other academics,
which lends a certain scientific credibility.  I'll bet we could get Steven
Brams to co-sign on this.

As for the report itself, open it with a modified version of my brochure on
the merits of Approval, essentially an abstract of the document.  Then, a
brief discussion for the VERY non-technical reader of the theoretical
advantages of AV over IRV and plurality, some hard numbers on Australia and
Eastern Europe, and closing with recommendations for implementation.

Abstract:  1 page, already written (essentially)

Merits of Approval:  3 pages, any of us can write it (maybe all interested
parties submit reports and then we decide)

Australia:  2 pages, requires a little bit of research.  Argue that the
difference between the Australian Senate (PR) and House (IRV) shows IRV's
inability to break the duopoly.

Eastern Europe:  2 pages, requires a little bit of research.  Find numbers
to show that at least 3 parties are competitive in single-winner races with
approval.

Prospects for reform:  2 pages.  Cite examples of states with strong third
parties, a numerical estimate of how many races were thrown by spoilers in
2000, and find out which states allow (a) state-wide or local ballot
measures initiated by voters and (b) counties and cities to write their own
election laws.  I believe that CNN.com has 2000 election returns for every
federal and state office, so spoilers are easy to find.  DEMOREP is also
good at digging up numbers and posting them.

In all, a 10 page, very non-technical report, written as a collaborative
effort by us.  Very feasible if we divide it up.  Takers?

To make it look like a formal organization, maybe Mike will declare us to
be members of the Election Methods Education and Research Group.  Then we
can post our report and press releases there.  Otherwise, we name ourselves
something impressive and make a web page.

Finally, having made ourselves into a grass-roots, non-partisan
organization with nationwide membership (how impressive!) we write a press
release announcing our report and our endorsement of Hager (as well as the
fund-raising initiative).  November is 7 months away, giving plenty of time
to write a brief report and press release.

What do people think of this?

Alex



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named above.  If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  This communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of Lehman Brothers.  Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free.  Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such.  All information is subject to change without notice.