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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 5:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
