Prev: ROT IN HELL GREEK FUCKWIT....
Next: Garage Night new video: Suspension overhaul starts with Dremelon a lathe
From: Pietro on 8 Feb 2010 20:05
"Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in message
> theo wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 3:24 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)mindless.com> wrote:
>>> theo wrote:
>>>> That is part of the problem. You get the person you least object to,
>>>> rather than the person you want.
>>> It's not a problem at all. If the person you want has enough votes they
>>> win. See. Amazing, but true. You get the person you want. If they
>>> can't win, your second choice gets your vote, and so on. If your
>>> preference, a proportional voting model was used, how do you get the
>>> person you want?
>> You can't vote for the person you want. You can only vote for the
>> people on the ticket. A few (very few) people in the party decide
>> which person gets on the ticket, so you may as well vote for the
>> party. Your local person, who you voted in to look after you, will
>> certainly vote whichever way the party says, otherwise they don't get
>> preselection next time. If you think they can follow their own agenda,
>> or their stated moral stance, just look at Garrett.
> Everyone who you want to represent you or wants to represent you has the
> opportunity to nominate themselves for election on your ballot paper
> (subject to electoral rules). There's nothing stopping the party of your
> choice from standing multiple candidates against each other in your
> electorate to allow you to choose which one you prefer. If they choose
> not to stand because the organisation they belong to tell them they can't,
> then that's a problem you have with the rules of the political party of
> your choice, its not a failing of the electoral system, and you should
> stop pretending that it is.
>> The problem with our current system, as I see it, is that it
>> disempowers large portions of the population. As shown in the recent
>> past, a new party can get 30% of the vote and fugg-all seats, so no
>> representation. In a proportional system they would have got 30% of
>> the seats. The other problem is that a very small change in voting can
>> make a huge difference in representation. E.g. if 51% of each
>> electorate votes for one party then the other party gets zero seats
>> and the 49% who voted for the losers get no representation. A 2% swing
>> in every electorate would see the reverse. It's silly but contrived to
>> keep a possible third party from getting any kind of foothold.
> 51% is a clear majority. That's democracy for ya. That independant
> candidates have been elected to parliament in the past and present
> disputes your assertion. In fact at the current time, the Commonwealth
> government, and every single State and Territory lower house government
> include politicans who were elected on Greens and/or Independant tickets.
> So much for your alleged 2 party stranglehold.
>> Even the Senate elections ar not proportionate after the primary votes
>> are counted. Deals can be made for the losers preferences to help, as
>> GS wrote, another party win a seat they would not otherwise have had.
> Every voter has the opportunity to distribute preferences on their ballot
> paper in precisely the way that they wish so any talk of preference deals
> between parties or candidates causing voters to vote against their wishes
> are rubbish. If people choose to follow the advice of their first
> preference on how to distribute the remaining preferences, then that is
> their decision. IF they are too stupid to understand or too lazy to learn
> how the election process works I have precisely 0% sympathy for them.
> It's not a secret, information on how elections work is readily available,
> for free, particularly around election times.
As an aside, it seems to me that many people still fail to grasp that if
they vote for one of the top two candiadates (the ones who end up first and
second), their preferences actually do nothing. So preference deals by the
major parties are more about political advertising than about the actual
Only the preferences of the candidates who come last (i.e. the least
popular) actually get used, and that sequentially only until one candidate
get to 50% + 1 vote.
Of course this stuff is taught in grade 4 / 5 school, so most adults have
probably forgotten (who is actually smarter than a 5th grader?).
From: theo on 8 Feb 2010 23:41
On Feb 9, 9:05 am, "Pietro" <no...(a)dontbesilly.com> wrote:
> As an aside, it seems to me that many people still fail to grasp that if
> they vote for one of the top two candiadates (the ones who end up first and
> second), their preferences actually do nothing. So preference deals by the
> major parties are more about political advertising than about the actual
> voting mechanism.
> Only the preferences of the candidates who come last (i.e. the least
> popular) actually get used, and that sequentially only until one candidate
> get to 50% + 1 vote.
Yup, that's exactly why preference deals are important. It is the top
two candidates who really, really need the preferences of the losers
to get over the 50% line. Their own preferences don't matter but they
will sell their souls, and their election promises to you, for the
prefertences of the losers. Preferences are of no use to the losers.
they will sell theirs to the highest bidder.
> Of course this stuff is taught in grade 4 / 5 school, so most adults have
> probably forgotten (who is actually smarter than a 5th grader?).
I'm pretty sure I kearnt it about then.
From: CrazyCam on 9 Feb 2010 00:02
> The Daytona 675 is a sports bike. The Street Triple is not.
The Street Triple doesn't count as a sports bike because it is actually
comfortable for a normal human to ride for more than 20 minutes at a time.
From: hippo on 9 Feb 2010 01:21
> Andrew wrote:
> > The Daytona 675 is a sports bike. The Street Triple is not.
> The Street Triple doesn't count as a sports bike because it is actually
> comfortable for a normal human to ride for more than 20 minutes at a time.
I'm not even going to ask :D
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
From: Nev.. on 9 Feb 2010 01:57
> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:06:12 +1100, Nev.. wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> OK. Let's start with 'The Most Sporting Bike Class Defined By The
>>> Manufacturer'. For example, Kawasaki make bikes they classify as
>>> 'Sport' and 'Supersport'. We take the 'Supersport' category and we get
>>> the ZX-6R Ninja, the ZX-10R Ninja and the ZX-14. OK, Suzuki next. They
>>> have bikes they classify as 'Sport / Sport Touring' and 'Supersport'.
>>> We take the 'Supersport' category and we get the GSX-R600, the
>>> GSX-R750, the GSX- R1000 and the Hayabusa.
>>> I'm happy with all of those (actually, I really would be). Want to try
>>> Ducati? They have categories called 'SportClassic' and 'Superbike'. And
>>> if you do the obvious and select 'Superbike', you get the 848, 1098R,
>>> 1198 and 1198S.
>>> I could go on but I think Nev.. is snoring. Anyone interested in
>>> offering a contradictory example?
>> hmm... you've ignored a few 1300+cc 150+HP 260+kph machines which people
>> do buy for their touring capabilities.
>> '08 DL1000K8
> No I haven't. In Kawasaki's range I've *included* the ZX-14 and in
> Suzuki's range I've *included* the Haybusa, even though I don't think
> either of them are really sports bikes (more Grand Tourer with sporting
> pretensions). Kawasaki don't count the GTR1400 as a supersports bike and
> so neither do I. They don't count the Ninja 250R as a supersports bike,
> even though it is deliberately styled to look like one, and so I don't
I never asked what they counted as sports bikes, I asked what you
counted as sports bikes. You are the one who made a claim that anyone
who buys a sportsbike is a hoon. I'm interested to know why you think
ZX-14 and Hayabusa riders are not hoons.