“Rise Up! The System Is Broken”
A Unity Rally & March
Wednesday November 28, at 2:00 PM
Pioneer Park, St. Petersburg
After our successful rally and march in Orlando on Oct. 27, peace-promoting patriots and other progressive minded interest groups will be gathering in St. Petersburg during the CNN/Youtube Republican Presidential Debate on Nov. 28 from 2pm-10pm. Our theme is “Rise Up! The System Is Broken” and our hope is
to attract media attention, provide organizations opportunities to network, and inspire those individuals not currently active to become so.
This is a non-partisan event designed to let the media and the community know that our needs aren't being met by this millionaire's beauty pageant they're calling a political process, that the media is complicit, and the only way we're going to effect real change is by coming together at the grassroots level. In short, it's a call for folks of all political persuasions to get involved.
Please join your Florida Progressive Democrats Of America Coordinators -- along with the DEC's of Pinellas, Pasco, and Hillsborough, Tampa Democracy For America, Florida Consumer Action Network, Pinellas NOW, various chapters of Vets For Peace and Code Pink, Ron Paul Meetup Groups, and others--in a rally and march for a process that better addresses our needs.
What: Unity Rally, March, and Protest calling for change in the corporate media and a political process that isn't addressing our needs.
When: Wed, Nov 28, 2pm-10pm. (Before, during, and after CNN/You Tube Rep Pres Debate)
Where:
Rally: Pioneer Park 1 Beach Dr. SE , St. Petersburg, FL Speakers, acoustic music, tabling, and straw poll of all presidential candidates, regardless of party, including Instant Runoff Voting.
March: From the park to the closest space to the Mahaffee Theater where security will allow us to gather on the sidewalks.
Contact:
To volunteer or RSVP your participation, please contact Florida State Co-Coordinator for PD, and Chair of the Nov 28th Unity Rally Michael Fox at stpetedebate@yahoo.com or (727) 320-4502.
Endorsing Organizations: Florida Consumer Action Network, Florida Progressive Dems Of America, Tampa Democracy For America, Dem. Exec Cmtees of Pinellas, Hillsoborugh, and Pasco Counties, Ron Paul For Pres. FL Meetup Groups, Gravel For President Grassroots FL, Kucinich For President Grassroots FL, Florida Peace Action Network, Veterans For Peace, Various Chapters, Code Pink, Various Chapters, Miltary Families Speak Out, Fl, Pinellas County NOW, Various Unions and Clergy.
1 comments:
While it's clear that our traditional "vote for one" (plurality) voting system is inexcusable, Instant Runoff Voting is not much better - and there are many better simpler solutions. There is also a great deal of public misunderstanding and misinformation surrounding IRV, largely the result of the IRV propaganda organization, FairVote.
One common myth is that IRV elects "majority winners". But IRV can lead to the election of candidate X, even when candidate Y is preferred to X by a huge majority. Consider this hypothetical IRV election.
#voters - their vote
10 G > C > P > M
3 C > G > P > M
5 C > P > M > G
6 M > P > C > G
4 P > M > C > G
C is the clear Condorcet (condor-SAY) winner, meaning he is preferred by a landslide majority over all his individual rivals. He is preferred over G, P, and M all by an 18-10 margin.
But... M wins, even though he also has fewer first-place votes (6 voters) than C with 8.
Also:
1. P is preferred to M by 22 of the 28 voters, yet he's the first candidate eliminated.
2. G also has more first-place votes (10) than M's 6.
3. So M either loses pairwise to, or has fewer first-place votes than (or both) every rival, but still IRV elects M.
Notice that the first group of voters could have caused C to win if they had only "lied", and put him first in their list. That would mean they'd get their second favorite instead of their fourth favorite. Statistical analysis reveals that this strategy is advised for all candidates who don't appear to have at least a 20% chance of winning. That means that, contrary to FairVote propaganda, IRV does not let you "vote your hopes, not your fears". And this means that IRV effectively degrades toward plain old plurality (vote-for-one) voting. This is explained in more detail here, by math experts:
http://rangevoting.org/TarrIrv.html
Election integrity experts and activists, like computer science Ph.D. Rebecca Mercuri disapprove of IRV because it is conducive to the adoption of fraud-susceptible electronic voting machines. IRV is also more susceptible to fraud because it is not countable in precincts. That is, candidate A could win every individual precinct, but bizarrely lose when the ballots are all summed together - which enforces centralized tabulation, which is more susceptible to central fraud conspiracy. And IRV typically causes spoiled ballots to go up by a factor of about 7.
http://rangevoting.org/SPRates.html
A much simpler and far better system is Approval Voting. It's just like the current system, except that there is no limit on the number of candidates one may vote for. While it may seem initially less intuitive than ranking choices, deep scrutiny shows that Approval Voting produces a far more representative outcome, and is less harmed by problems like strategic voting. This is shown through an objective economic measure called Bayesian regret, which shows how well a particular voting method tends to satisfy the preferences of the voters. The improvement gotten by Approval Voting relative to IRV is especially large if the voters are strategic, as was described above (although FairVote promoters will often falsely claim that the best strategy with Approval Voting is to "bullet vote"). See:
http://rangevoting.org/BayRegDum.html
If we don't mind a somewhat more cluttered ballot, we can upgrade to Range Voting, which uses a ratings scale, like Olympics scoring. It is arguably more intuitive, and produces phenomenal Bayesian regret results, meaning more satisfied voters, and more competitive nominees, if used for a party's nomination process (i.e. a big strategic advantage).
For a look at how the major parties could become dramatically more competitive by merely adopting Range Voting or Approval Voting, see:
http://rangevoting.org/ForDems.html
http://rangevoting.org/ForReps.html
Election reformers must be diligent and do their research. Don't be misled by FairVote's clever marketing. Look at what Ivy League mathematicians and political science experts such as Steve Brams, who write entire books on this stuff, say. FairVote has an agenda, and it's definitely not in the pubic's best interest.
Clay Shentrup
San Francisco, CA
415.240.1973
clay@electopia.org
Post a Comment