From: Nev.. on
G-S wrote:
> Nev.. wrote:
>> I can't understand how people could be asked to number boxes
>> from 1 to n in their order of preference, and yet not understand that
>> they were numbering boxes from 1 to n in their order of preference.
>
> Really?
>
> From what I remember of the 'how to vote' instruction cards handed out
> at the election booths they clearly said to vote for the senate using a
> single number in a box above the line.
>
> That doesn't sound much like 1 to n to me...

Well you need to make up your mind, because first you were complaining
that the system of voting was broken and now apparently you're saying
it's broken because the candidates are keeping a secret from the public
on how voting works. You do know what how to vote cards are, don't you?

Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
From: Nev.. on
G-S wrote:
> Nev.. wrote:
>> G-S wrote:
>>> Marts wrote:
>>>> G-S wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> I have private health care and so do all my family, I haven't used
>>>>> the public health system in over 20 years.
>>>>
>>>> You would have. For example, every time you pulled out your Medicare
>>>> card. Or if
>>>> you're admitted to the ED, which is paid for by Medicare.
>>>
>>> I haven't been to an emergency department in over 20 years.
>>>
>>> The only times I've been in hospital in more than 20 years I've been
>>> in private hospital.
>>>
>>>> And the PBS for prescription drugs.
>>>
>>> I actually am on regular prescriptions, plus aspirin.
>>>
>>> None of the prescriptions I am on are on the PBS (although there are
>>> less effective alternatives that are in the PBS list) and aspirin I
>>> buy over the counter.
>>>
>>> Try again...
>>
>> LOL. Are you naive enough to think that when you attend a private
>> hospital, they don't claim 100% of your Medicare entitlement on your
>> behalf? LOL.
>
> I never said the private hospital hadn't benefited from public health, I
> said I had not.

And you can't see how the private hospital receiving money on your
behalf for services they provide to you, is to your benefit? Really?

Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
From: G-S on
Nev.. wrote:
> G-S wrote:
>> Nev.. wrote:
>>> I can't understand how people could be asked to number boxes
>>> from 1 to n in their order of preference, and yet not understand that
>>> they were numbering boxes from 1 to n in their order of preference.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> From what I remember of the 'how to vote' instruction cards handed
>> out at the election booths they clearly said to vote for the senate
>> using a single number in a box above the line.
>>
>> That doesn't sound much like 1 to n to me...
>
> Well you need to make up your mind, because first you were complaining
> that the system of voting was broken and now apparently you're saying
> it's broken because the candidates are keeping a secret from the public
> on how voting works. You do know what how to vote cards are, don't you?
>

The voting 'system' includes the rules and regulations governing
election materials and what, when and how election materials consist of.

So the how to vote cards are part of that system.


G-S

From: G-S on
Nev.. wrote:
> G-S wrote:
>> Nev.. wrote:
>>> G-S wrote:
>>>> Marts wrote:
>>>>> G-S wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have private health care and so do all my family, I haven't used
>>>>>> the public health system in over 20 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> You would have. For example, every time you pulled out your
>>>>> Medicare card. Or if
>>>>> you're admitted to the ED, which is paid for by Medicare.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't been to an emergency department in over 20 years.
>>>>
>>>> The only times I've been in hospital in more than 20 years I've been
>>>> in private hospital.
>>>>
>>>>> And the PBS for prescription drugs.
>>>>
>>>> I actually am on regular prescriptions, plus aspirin.
>>>>
>>>> None of the prescriptions I am on are on the PBS (although there are
>>>> less effective alternatives that are in the PBS list) and aspirin I
>>>> buy over the counter.
>>>>
>>>> Try again...
>>>
>>> LOL. Are you naive enough to think that when you attend a private
>>> hospital, they don't claim 100% of your Medicare entitlement on your
>>> behalf? LOL.
>>
>> I never said the private hospital hadn't benefited from public health,
>> I said I had not.
>
> And you can't see how the private hospital receiving money on your
> behalf for services they provide to you, is to your benefit? Really?
>

I would use the private hospital no matter what the cost of that
hospital to me.

The government subsidizing those private hospitals reduces the cost to
me of course, which means I receive a benefit from the private hospital
subsidies.

But the benefit I receive is less than (substantially less than) the tax
that I pay (and that applies to the total of benefits that I receive).

So the NET benefit is negative.


G-S
From: hippo on
Kevin Gleeson wrote:
>
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 04:28:37 +0000 (UTC),
> am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1(a)REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au (hippo) wrote:
>
> >Kevin Gleeson wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 14:44:46 +1100, G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Nev.. wrote:
> >> >> G-S wrote:
> >> >>> Nev.. wrote:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> .. The least voted against
> >> >>>> candidate wins. You really can't respect the intent of all of the
> >> >>>> voters much more than that.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> In the house of representatives that's probably the case, but in the
> >> >>> senate preference deals and 1 box above the line voting can see
> >> >>> candidates that are much less popular (both in the voted for and
voted
> >> >>> against senses of the term) elected.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I can't remember the exact numbers but a fundie got elected to the
> >> >>> senate last election with something like 50 or 60 thousand votes and
a
> >> >>> green candidate with several hundred thousand votes standing against
> >> >>> him didn't get elected.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> That's an artificial distortion...
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm quite confused now, because in this very thread when Theo said
"I'm
> >> >> for proportional voting" you said "Yah me too..." and proportional
> >> >> voting is indeed the method of voting which the Senate uses, and yet
now
> >> >> you seem to think that this is a bad thing. Please explain.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I'm for proportional voting and against preferential voting.
> >> >
> >> >So I'd like to see a government with proportional voting and without
> >> >preferences, because preferences distort the result so that the largest
> >> >proportion of voters chosen representative doesn't get elected.
> >> >
> >> >I'm also against small regions being used to elect members, I'd rather
> >> >see state based numbers used. That way minor parties who have (as an
> >> >example) 10% of the vote end up with 10% of the seats.
> >> >
> >> >In the current system a 3rd party can get well over 10% of the vote and
> >> >not win a single seat in the lower house.
> >> >
> >> >That also seems an artificial distortion to me.
> >>
> >> Checked out the Hare-Clark voting system used in Tas? It balances out
> >> things nicely without giving the financially big parties too much
> >> leash.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Yebbut.... you still have a distortion in that whoever forms a government
> >still has to rely on the Federl Gumment to balance the books :)
>
> I was referring to the Hare-Clarke system as being something that I'd
> like to see in federal elections. Probably didn't make that clear I
> spose.
>
>

Got that: just having a mild dig at Tas' balance sheet without outside
help. :)

--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au