“monotonicity”

Here’s a definition one of the monotonists have put out there: “Monotonicity: If choice X is a winner of an election and, in a reelection, the only changes in the ballots are changes that only favor X, then X should remain a winner of the election.”

Some of our local monotonists, Wes and his apparent favorite anti-IRV website specifically, have even advanced the notion that if we fiddle with people’s voting patterns and apply a very specific number of one candidate’s votes to another candidate … why we can change the results of the election!

Okay, I already knew changing the vote count could change the election. BUT WES AND COMPANY ARE BUSY TRYING TO LURE YOU INTO A FALSE SENSE OF MATHEMATICAL CERTAINTY ABOUT A FALSE ISSUE!

What the monotonists fail to tell you is that the primary purpose of instant runoff voting is a runoff. That means unless there is a first round winner, the number of votes a candidate receives is relevant only so far as to whether or not that candidate advances to the next round.

Once in the second round the vote count makes no distinction between “first” or “second” choices … everybody’s top choice in the existing field of candidates is counted equally.

But the monotonists would have us believe we should still count the “first” choice votes as being something more special than the “second” choice votes in a runoff. And they will repeat the monotonicity mantra with fervor … drumming on our heads that their claim has some real application.

Here’s the trick … we already know that the candidate who finished in the lead but didn’t win a mandated majority contest is not necessarily the one who will win the final election. That’s for a simple reason … people who can’t have their preferred candidate might want to vote for someone other than the first round top vote getter.

So monotonists will happily inform us they have a scenario THEY COOKED UP IN THEIR OWN IMAGINATIONS where Kiss could have received more first round votes then he did in reality and yet have lost the election!

But we know that everybody’s top choice of existing candidates in the second round of voting is counted equally. Nobody’s vote is counted as more meaningful than another’s. In the second round of vote counting you’re vote for Montrol is a vote no matter if you ranked Montrol first or second. THE RANKING ITSELF IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT TO THE VOTE COUNT!

A second scam being perpetrated by the monotonists is their claimed special ability to measure levels of preference without ever asking folks.

For example: monotonists will add up first and second and third place votes in an attempt to tell us which candidate was preferred above another. The idea being that rating one candidate above another indicates the preference.

What they can’t do is tell you if person A really didn’t have a preference and just arbitrarily put one ahead of the other or if person A really had a large preference for one candidate over another. And they can’t come close to any of the shades of preference folks express by different rankings … is it large, small, insignificant? To the monotonists those gradations are all equal numbers they can present with mathematical certainty. The monotonists will inform you that an unmeasured quantity can be presented as measured.

Certainly, if we entertain the monotonists imagination and take 700 some odd first place votes from Wright’s column and arbitrarily transfer those first round votes to Kiss, there is a scenario where Kiss would not have been elected.

But that is because Montrol would have garnered a majority of support that Kiss wasn’t able to. Not because of some failure due to “monotonicity”, but because in the second or third round of voting, people who picked someone other than Montrol or Kiss as their top one or two choices picked Montrol over Kiss.

And that is what instant runoff voting is all about after all, the electorate getting to tell the vote counters who the electorate wants.

Guess its time to get off the dime and start a Geithner thread. Or a Geithner/Summers thread. Or is it an Obama thread?

Whatever. The point is: imagine for a moment that overwhelming sense of relief and burst of national economic confidence that would result if we woke up to find that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers had resigned, and that Presidential Economic Advisory Chair Paul Volcker was taking over at Treasury?

Interestingly, Obama is finding a way to unite Ds and Rs after all – in frustration with his economic team. Of course, what’s really happening is hardly unity; Dems and Repubs are now in a race of populist-esque rhetoric to get to the political-moral high ground on the matter. The result, in the immediate term, has yielded policy dividends, such as the creative, almost-100% tax on the dreaded AIG benefits that’s passing quickly through Congress (and that Obama has suggested he’ll sign, putting him in direct opposition to the previous efforts of Geithner and Summers to insure Wall Street bonuses were left untouched in the economic stimulus bill).

But of course, the R-D conflict and the surprising emergence of Congress as a warp-speed lawmaking entity has come in no small part as a result of the vacuum in economic leadership that has come to a head in the White House.  

Geithner was supposed to be a Larry Summers that people could work with (while Summers himself has a position of equal significance, but one where he doesn’t have to deal with people as much), but the mixed signals sent from him, Obama, and various “inside sources” has led to a damning chorus of “who’s in charge” directed at the new administration – and not simply from the folks thought of as “the left” or “the right.” The result is a sense that nothing was really gained by getting Tim instead of Larry – the two of which are becoming an intellectually marginalized tweedledee and tweedledum. The two, rather than representing “change,” seem to be mired in a desire not to play economic managers, but to try and play financial sector good-ole-boys while still expecting the economic recovery to be a relatively casual affair.

Here’s a rapid fire list of some of the high-profile particulars against Geithner (and Summers): either he’s bullshitting about when he knew about the AIG bonuses, or he has a serious memory problem (ha), their uncoordinated, inadequate plan to deal with the banks, a pronounced resistance to transparency, and of course, the naked sleaziness of blaming embattled Chris Dodd for pulling bonus restrictions out of the stimulus legislation before finally acknowledge it was at his own urging, etc.

It was hard to understand Obama’s committment to institutional throwbacks Geithner and Summers – especially in light of the plethora of good advisers he has otherwise been surrounded by (many with significantly superior reputations, such as Volcker). Obama is not an economist, so one wonders if his committment to this twosome is as much about personal connections as it is about policy.

Whatever the case, we’ve entered untrodden political ground as the AIG news seems to have caused the electorate to pop. Obama does himself no favors by dismissing the affair as a “distraction.” Its hard to imagine things improving quickly with Tim and Larry at the helm, and Obama’s emotionally validating speeches delivered without a clear reflection in actual policy have begun sounding hollow in absolutely record speed for a new President.

If he doesn’t make some tangible moves to take control of the conversation (and the situation) soon, the price to pay will be high – and the cost in his reduced clout on the Hill and in the polls will likely be progress on upcoming priorities such as health care.

(I know her…. she’s on the up-and-up (heh). – promoted by odum)

Hello Energy & Climate Action Enthusiasts!

The Vermont Energy & Climate Action Network needs your help.

There is an exciting opportunity to help VECAN advance its mission of starting and strengthening town energy committees in Vermont. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters has four $200,000 grants they will be giving to four worthy proposals. And they are having a competition to see which energy and climate action proposal is worth their support. We think ours is. VECAN proposes to work with town energy committees and other energy-innovating Vermonters to implement tested, greenhouse gas reducing programs that tackle the biggest climate change challenge in Vermont: Transportation.

Here’s how you can help: Vote for our idea!

Simply click on this link and you can help us potentially secure a $200,000 grant to turn good ideas into on-the-ground solutions:

http://www.justmeans.com/competitionidea/9964/promoteidea.html

Here’s the deal: Part of the application process involves submitting a summary of our grant idea to a website called justmeans.org. Then the grantors assess it against the number of votes and positive comments it receives relative to other proposals. The top vote getters proposals are given greater weight when their full proposals are reviewed.

We hope you’ll take 2 minutes to help make this possible. Simply:

1.    Click on the following link:   http://www.justmeans.com/competitionidea/9964/promoteidea.html 

2.    Then, you will be asked to provide your name, email, and password. (Note: The system does not verify your email address, so if you don’t want to share that, get creative!)

3.    As soon as your “registration” is complete, they will automatically count your vote.  (In other words, there is no need to click any other buttons to vote.)  Please take a moment to enter a supportive comment right below the proposal.

4.    LAST STEP AND CRUCIAL STEP: Please email 10 friends and colleagues asking them to vote in support of our proposal as well! Be sure to include these instructions so they can easily zip through the registration process.

We have until March 20th, Friday (that’s right – Friday) to gather more than 700 votes to put our proposal in first place.  Can you please help us get there?

Thanks in advance for your help and all the hard work you do!

–The Vermont Energy & Climate Action Network Team

Busy, crowded and intense at the Statehouse as testimony is taken on the Marriage Equality Bill.

It’s like the Civil Unions battle on the one hand, but the feel was very different. Where that seemed like a knock-down drag out, this seems more celebratory somehow. Like a really good thing is happening.

CCTV has a video feed, and there’s liveblogging at Blurt and the Freeps (which also has a video feed).

Hopping in late, but need a place to get my thoughts down

6:26 – Everyone’s gone out strong to start, Rev. Roland Smith was the first to really take the bigotry to the next level.  The con side has decided to put all the religious community out first.

6:28 – For the record, Senator Sears changed the speaking limit from three minutes to two, so a lot of people are racing through.  Currently the crowd is getting another lecture.  We’re only four con speakers in, and already we now are all aware of how the world began.

6:39 – A man says that if a homosexual couple breaks up, will they go after our children.  Whole room boos.

“No[t] sure what was more offensive: Saying gay men were pedophiles or that they would rape others if they got divorced.” – Beck Holt, BFP

6:50 – The one striking thing about the debate so far has been the two approaches the sides have taken.  The pro-marriage crowd has done an excellent job of smiling, joking, and presenting a highly diverse front.  The opposition on the other hand, has been a bunch of old people or reverends, reminding us either how the world began, or to get off their lawn.

7:08 – Was waiting for something new to kind of develop, but we’ve been in basically a holding pattern for the past 20 minutes.  A lot of angry people complaining about things we’ve already legally allowed.  A lot of happy faces providing their unique reasons for supporting the legislation.

7:37 – A lot of screams on the con side of the aisle this evening, not the best way to present…

7:54 – The debate has settled quite a great deal, with speakers much more composed and level headed.  I’ve been waiting all night to hear the argument from the opposition that moves past just a religious barrier.  Still nowhere to be seen.

Paul Millman, a self-identified new breed of entrepreneur who said he was the answer to ‘problems’ in the Vermont Democratic Party, has now withdrawn from the race.

Hello again,

Prior to the letter I sent introducing myself I spoke with a member of the state committee with whom I was already acquainted. We spoke about what was, at the time, a possible candidacy for the Chair. At the time I was unsure that it was a good idea. I began thinking seriously about this effort when the position was vacant and before Judy Bevans announced that she would seek the position. By the time I consulted with your committee colleague I was ambivalent because I spoke with Judy and knew of her plans to seek the Chair.

During our discussion he told me that while he wasn’t convinced that he should vote for me, he believed that I raised issues that needed to be addressed. It was then that I decided that the effort had legitimacy even if I didn’t win. I saw, and still see, serious issues that the state committee needs to address if it is to organize to beat Jim Douglas in 2010. I was encouraged that I could spark that discussion. I don’t think this happened. I did have great discussion with people on and off the state committee. I had less than great discussions with others.

Today I am withdrawing from consideration for the position of Chair. It’s obvious that I have no chance of winning. It also seems unlikely that the time is ripe for the discussion I seek to promote. On the other hand I still think I have something to offer and I’m egocentric enough to I think that you might find it worthwhile. While it’s true that I haven’t been intimately involved in the Party organization, my years of marketing experience and driving a successful business taught me something.

More on the flip.

Continuing Millman’s letter (with his six-point ‘prescription’ for the party omitted):

[…]

I’m going back to work. There are things at Chroma that need addressing. Windham County has three excellent representatives on the state committee. Perhaps I will consider such a position if one of them decides not to run next time. In the mean time I am happy to take on work for the state committee that fits my skills.

I wish you well ,

Paul

Paul Millman

Chroma Technology Corp.

He has apparently never attended a state committee meeting, nor has he volunteered to fundraise or to do actual campaign work in any capacity. He would have been beaten badly, likely garnering just a few votes, primarily from the labor folks (because his business is employee-owned?) who put him up to it in the first place. He could be just what is needed … if …

If he’s sincere about wanting to “help” the party and not just make it over in his own image, he’ll be at the Curtis dinner March 28, having sponsored a company table or two (for $1000 or $2000 per, plus $360 for the six dinner seats not included in the sponsorship price). Perhaps we’ll see him working the phones to raise money for a gubernatorial candidate or to help pay rent on the statewide campaign office next year, or talking to Rotary clubs and Chambers of Commerce dinners about how it’s the Democrats who are the entrepreneurs’ best friend.

A few state committee members I’ve talked to sincerely believe that will happen. If it does, good. If not (and he left himself an out in the phrase, “take on work for the state committee that fits my skills”), there’s a measure of the man and his commitment.

(Thanks for writing this up. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Matching fund requirements (strings) not attached to the federal recovery funds may be applied by the state to towns and cities .Under normal circumstances towns and cities are required to provide matching funds .Transportation Secretary Dill says it may impose a matching fund requirement on towns receiving federal stimulus money despite this different situation with the recovery money. “I think it is fairest to be consistent,” Dill said. “It gives you more money to do more projects.”

It certainly does give you more money if you burden the already strapped towns and cities with a charge .A charge of 10% match is what the state could require from towns and cities. The Governor is levying a 10% surcharge (tax) on the federal recovery funds when he hands them along.

No mention of the role of the new Vermont Federal Recovery Office on this. In Feb. Speaker Smith called for a panel made up of one person each from the Vt. House, Vt. Senate and the governor’s office .This seems like the ideal situation in which this could be considered rather than just  by the Governor’s team.

It could matter for many communities. Among the possible projects that may be funded with the first piece of the transportation stimulus money – at least $45 million – include a bridge project in Barre, a portion of the Bennington Bypass (up to $20 million worth), a bridge in East Montpelier, paving in Fair Haven and Rockingham and others.

Some towns – primarily those in line for stimulus funding – object to the idea of a local match for the money. Those who have paid, or will pay, the local match to receive other federal funds frequently support it.

Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, said it is striking that state officials advocated for suspending the state match requirement by the feds, but is considering imposing it on the towns.

“Why would we ask the federal government to excuse the state match, but require it of the local municipalities,” he said.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/a…

Recovery Officer Tom Evslin today responding to WCAX report on two towns surprise at matching fund requirement(20%) the state is insisting on

“There’s still confusion because people hear there’s a flood of money,” said Tom Evslin, of the Economic Stimulus and Recovery Office.Evslin oversees applications for the federal funds in Vermont.

He says the 20 percent match is nothing new.“The whole highway program is being done through existing rules and regulations,” Evslin explained. “We are administering it that way becauseit wouldn’t be fair to the towns that paid the match before and in the future to say suddenly say a couple of towns in there are going to get no match.”

http://www.wcax.com/Global/sto…

Pursuant to the subpoena issued by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the American International Group (AIG) has released a list of the bonuses issued by its Financial Products division. While seventy-three employees received bonuses of at least $1,000,000.00, some of the bonuses were paid to people who didn't even work for AIG.

Among the workers deemed by AIG to be deserving of special recognition for outstanding job performance were:

Captain Joe Hazelwood, Exxon-Mobil Corporation. AIG President and CEO Edward M. Liddy observed, “It is true that there was one incident in which Capt. Hazelwood performed at less than his peak, but people overlook the many voyages in which Capt. Hazelwood neither ran aground and caused a massive oil spill, nor operated his ship under the influence of alcohol. On balance, Hazelwood was entitled to a bonus of $800,000 because it is in the interests of Exxon-Mobil to retain the best and the brightest.”

Homer J. Simpson, Fork and Spoon Operator, Sector 7-G. Absenteeism, gluttony, sleeping on the job, and generalized incompetence. $1,200,000.00. According to AIG's Liddy, “If AIG owned a nuclear power plant, he would be our safety officer.”

George L. Costanza. $3,800,000.00 for performance above and beyond the call of duty for multiple employers. Pendant Publishing: fired for having sex with cleaning woman on his desk. Play Now Corporation: defrauded corporation by posing as a handicapped employee.  New York Yankees: placed team in shrinkable cotton uniforms, causing painful rout, chafing; traded to Tyler Chicken for fermented chicken products. Krueger Industrial Smoothing: defrauded corporation out of $10,000 for contribution to “The Human Fund”, a nonexistent charity. AIG CEO Liddy's comment, “Are you sure he never worked for AIG/FP? He may not be Penske material, but we like the cut of his jib!”

Remember this?

HIGHGATE, VT – Small mushy lagoons hold the odoriferous byproduct of numerous dairy farms in this speck of a town near the Canadian border. Diesel fumes spew out of rumbling grain trucks. A dead skunk lies on a lonely two-lane highway. But what really smells, some residents say, is something new to these parts: a huge egg farm that is home to 100,000 chickens. The birds generate two million pounds of manure each year, and nearby dairy farmers say the chickens pollute the air and attract armies of flies. The egg farm operators say cows are worse. But for now, the dairy farmers appear to have the upper hand -drawing the interest of state lawmakers and regulators looking askance at the egg farm’s planned expansion.

(Chicken Farm Is Raising a Big Stink In Tiny Highgate, VT, Wall Street Journal, 11/13/97)

There certainly were a lot of fly problems reported in this …

Besides water quality problems, another environmental problem has been flies. The source of many citizen complaints has been the 100,000-hen facility, Vermont Egg Farms, Inc. (VEF), owned by a Canadian agribusiness that has also attempted to open hog operations in Maine.18 Virtually every farm within a one-mile radius of VEF has reported unprecedented problems with flies, according to a July 1998 survey by the family farm group, Rural Vermont. Farmers report that the flies are spreading mastitis, an udder infection, among their cows as well as increasing stress for the animals, leading to reduced milk production and economic losses.19

VEF’s closest neighbor, a dairy farmer a half mile away, has filed a nuisance suit for economic losses and put his farm up for sale.20 The state Agriculture Department has measured as many as 3,000 flies in a single calf hutch on that farm, reports Ellen Taggart, Executive Director of Rural Vermont, who has visited the farm. Upon entering the cow barn, Taggart says, the flies were so thick that they looked “like a cloud of dust moving up from your feet. Cows were constantly stomping their feet and moving around trying to get rid of the flies.” The cows, whose tails have been removed, were “shooting their feed onto their backs to shoo the flies,” Taggart recalls. “This farmer said he was losing thousands of dollars each week in feed.”

(Natural Resources Defense Council)

Now Reuters is reporting

Flies, already blamed for spreading disease, may help spread drug-resistant superbugs from chicken droppings, researchers reported on Monday.

They matched antibiotic-resistant enterococci and staphylococci bacteria from houseflies and the litter found in intensive poultry-farming barns in the Delmarva Peninsula region of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia.

. . .

“Our study found similarities in the antibiotic-resistant bacteria in both the flies and poultry litter we sampled. The evidence is another example of the risks associated with the inadequate treatment of animal wastes,” Graham said in a statement.

(Flies plus chicken droppings spread “superbugs”, Reuters, 03/16/09)

There is a low level caveat at the end of that last story in that the researchers didn’t “quantify the contribution of flies to human exposure”. Makes me wonder about my own little farm yard though.