Reply #11: Ahh, I read the motion and finally understand where the [View All]

[lapfog_1]

10 to 1 disproportionate weight argument comes in.

It's from the lawyers FLAWED (and I mean FLAWED) apples to oranges comparison in their motion to obtain a TRO.

Here:
http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/2008/01/plaintiffs_app.pdf

end of page 3, top of page 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
extraordinary scenario, likely to occur on January 19:

John and Jane Voter, each registered Party voters living in the same home in the Clark County Precinct 1001, are shift workers as a casino located on the Las Vegas Strip. John is scheduled to work at his place of employment on January 19, 2008, with his work schedule including the time of the caucus. He make the necessary arrangements to attend his assigned At-Large caucus. Two hundred-sixty other eligible shift workers also attend this At-Large caucus. The At-Large caucus participants choose 52 delegates to the Clark County Convention. John's voice in the At-Large caucus could be assigned a value of 0.19%.

Jane, by seeming good fortune, is not scheduled to work on the day of the caucus, so she is able to attend her home precinct caucus. Because Precinct 1001 has 261 registered delegates, she and the other participants at this precinct caucus choose 5 delegates to the Clark County Convention. Jane's influence in her home caucus could be assigned a value of 0.019%

Thus, pursuant to the Plan, this couple, both of whom live in the same house and work for the same employer, would have their caucus votes treated in vastly different manners. Jane's voice would be ONE-TENTH the value of her husband's, for no other reason than that her employer did not schedule her to work during the time of the caucus.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, let's take this apart one thing at a time. First off, there is an incorrect word choice in this example. Precinct 1001 (the example home Precinct) does not have 261 registered DELEGATES, it has 261 registered VOTERS... it's a small thing, but motions should be correct. According to the Plan rules, 261 registered voters in a Clark County Precinct would get delegates at a ratio of 50 - 1, that is, 50 registered democratic voters to 1 delegate. So 261 / 50 = 5.2 or 5 as the example states. And her voice is the stated 0.019%. Here is where the apples to oranges comes in. The example of John voting in the At-Large Precinct at the casino states that 260 eligible voters SHOWED UP to select delegates. The example never states how many SHOWED UP to vote in Precinct 1001 where Jane voted. The Plan states that an At-Large Precinct needs 4000 or more workers to qualify, so the fair comparison is number of workers or 4000+ / 50 equals number of delegates. Not the 260 that the example states "showed up" to caucus. After all, perhaps out of the 261 registered voters in Precinct 1001, lets say only 40 showed up to caucus. Jane would then have a weight given to her vote of 2.5%, a much HIGHER representation than John's.

You see why the plaintiff's lawyers had 260 showing up at the At-Large V. the 261 registered voters in Precinct 1001... because both of the groups have the SAME REPRESENTATION of 50 to 1 of registered voters... but they want to distort it by claiming that ALL VOTERS in the example precinct 1001 showed up but only got 5 delegates, whereas 260 showed up (out of 4000 potential voters) at the At-Large caucus and got 52 delegates. A convenient way to come up with the 10 to 1 ratio in the claims. But it's totally bogus.

Edit to add

Ohh, I just thought of something ELSE...

Jane's vote in her home precinct actually will count MORE (very slightly) than John's vote.
Follow me here... John and Jane both vote in precincts that award 50 to 1 delegates to eligible voters as has been demonstrated. However, John can't be in two places at one time, and in the example, John is a registered voter in the HOME PRECINCT (where Jane is voting), which means that the number of delegates awarded to that precinct is higher than it should be... because John (and all union members that are using the At-Large and who live in Precinct 1001) is not there to vote... so those who DO show up to vote in Precinct 1001 get the benefit of having MORE delegates to represent them.

To see this mathematically, use the same example the the lawyers wrote, only this time put in numbers that show EVERYONE caucusing (all 261 registered voters MINUS John and other working union members) and all 4000 At-Large eligible caucus voters. Jane actually gets a slightly LARGER voice than John (he is stuck at 50 to 1) because the number of delegates in her home caucus will include John and his co-workers (at the same 50 to 1 ratio).