Whole Life Times: You Can See Clearly Now

December 2006 | Letters from Readers

You Can See Clearly Now

I must agree with Joan Pierson of Chicago, who wrote in your August issue that the new typeface was very hard to read. Guess that’s why I’m replying so late; it took this long to read the magazine!
—Joan Kaufman, LA

Ed. reply: Good news Joan (and everyone else who struggled with the redesigned font): this month marks the introduction of our larger, easier-to-read font size. Ask, and ye shall receive!

Still Lovin’ the New Look
I hadn’t picked up your magazine in a long time. Do you have a new Art Director? It’s looking real good... Keeping it on my shelf a lot longer.
—Katina, via email

I wanted to take this opportunity to write to you about how wonderful your magazine is. I read the 10/06 edition. It had some lovely articles, event information, dining ideas, yoga events. Keep up the good work. Thank you for the free excellent journalism.
—Tamara Musani, Redondo Beach

Goodbye, Dome Sweet Home
As a two-year resident, it is with great heartfelt loss that I face the closing of Dome Village. I had spent almost three years homeless, with my Dalmatian. We lived a simple, joyous life. There were, of course, days of hell. Days when the rain fell unceasingly and the tarp over us would drip with condensation. We would lie together huddled for warmth waiting for the opening of the laundromat, where I could wash and dry our sodden belongings. There was nowhere for us to go. When I had finally resigned myself to the fact that I’d be homeless forever, or at least as long as I had my dog, I was approached by two women from LAHSA (Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority). They said, “We have a place that has an opening for you.” I replied, “Well thanks anyhow, but I have a dog.” They said, “No, you can take your dog!” (and as I wrote that I got goose bumps). [If not for Dome Village] I’d be dead or insane by now. Living in a tiny corner of Ted Hayes’ dream has been the most enriching experience of my life.
—John B. Hren, former Resident Staff of the now defunct downtown homeless housing community, Dome Village, which closed in late October following an unaffordable seven-fold rent hike on the property

You’re Not Gonna Love It In an Instant
Oh you love Instant Runoff Voting do you (Letter from the Editor, 11/06)? Maybe you’d change your perspective if you knew the harsh realities that IRV advocacy groups don’t want you to know. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is touted for its ability to take away the spoiler effect that small parties can have on an election, thereby also taking away the fear of voting for them, and giving a realistic idea of how much support they have. But it doesn’t always live up this promise, and there are much better methods that do.

It is ironic that many people believe IRV allows voters “more choices.” IRV has produced two-party domination in all four countries where it has been substantially used: Australia, Ireland, Malta and Fiji. And approximately two dozen US cities (the largest being New York City, in 1936) have implemented STV (IRV is STV applied to a single-winner election), only to have almost entirely reverted to plurality. The 26 countries we know of that use “top-two runoff,” on the other hand, have apparently all broken free of two-party duopoly. The same is true even of non-IRV branches of government within IRV countries.

Of course, we can compare the individual properties of voting systems ad infinitum, but that’s a bit like comparing the engines, tires and aerodynamics of two racecars. The ultimate metric is simply, when the rubber meets the road, which one gets the best time? The analogous test for a voting method is called “Bayesian regret.” In lay language, it is simply the avoidable voter dissatisfaction produced by an election process. A theoretical process that could read the voters’ minds, and choose the candidate who would bring about the greatest average happiness, would have a Bayesian regret of zero, by definition. Rigorous experimentation has shown that Range Voting (RangeVoting.org) produces about 20 percent less Bayesian regret (or five times as much voter satisfaction) as IRV or plurality, even when voters are extremely strategic instead of honest. This also shows us that Range Voting gives us as much improvement over plurality and IRV as either of those methods gives over non-democratic random selection of the winner. This means that Range Voting effectively doubles the happiness brought about by the invention of democracy!

With Range Voting, each voter simply assigns a score (say from 0-10) to each candidate, and the candidate with the highest average score wins. It’s simple and intuitive, and suffers far less harm from the use of strategic (“insincere”) voting than other known methods, like plurality and IRV. It also has the enormous benefit of giving third party supporters a chance to always express their sincere first choice preferences (or put another way, with Range Voting, a vote for Nader is NOT a vote for Bush, as it easily can be with plurality or IRV). And unlike IRV, Range Voting can be implemented on all standard US voting machines!

It’s time for voters to get educated about the various alternative voting methods that exist. Read more deeply into the facts and myths surrounding election reform. Not every idea associated with reform is a good one, and IRV happens to be particularly problematic. There are those who say, “But IRV has so much more momentum than anything else.” Well, global warming has more momentum than global cooling. Does that mean we should support global warming? Voters who care about choosing the candidate who will bring about the greatest overall satisfaction for society should push for the adoption of Range Voting. Meaningful, quality democracy requires that we do.
—Clay Shentrup, Seattle, WA

Ed. note: The above letter is just a portion of the complex explanation this reader shared with us. If you are more knowledgeable on the subject than we are, we invite you to continue the conversation so that we all can be educated.

Birthday Suit Yoga
I am a longstanding fan, right from the beginning, of you and your magazine. As a yoga instructor [I get] 150 copies of your magazine for my students and I encourage them to read it. I was so shocked to see the advertisement for a Nude Yoga Calendar this month that I nearly threw up. How could you do this to yoga and to us? You, of all people should know that this was not yoga at all. It was sheer pornography and voyeurism, promoting the commercialization of what is a pure spiritual and divine experience of putting mind, spirit and body together in full dignity, not a vulgar display of a person to make a fast buck. [That] they do it is bad enough but how could YOU permit it and allow it in your reputable magazine? Is yoga about a vulgar display of the female body? Are people going to buy this calendar to learn yoga? Are they not going to get sensuous pleasure from it, which is so far removed from what Yoga stands for? The close-ups must be terrible! I have to stop getting WLT and promoting it to my students (over 500 of them) unless you stop accepting these ads. Please, you know what it means to us!
—Rupa Dore, Monrovia/Arcadia

Ed. note: We understand that everyone has a different comfort level and regret any distress these images might cause. We feel that Jasper Johal’s photography has notable artistic merit. Far from being prurient, Johal uses the artistry of yoga to reveal the beauty inherent in the human form. Indeed, we all were resplendent in unadorned beauty in our first “child’s pose” — in our mothers’ wombs.

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: