From: G-S on
Nev.. wrote:
> G-S wrote:
>> Nev.. wrote:
>>> theo wrote:
>>>> On Feb 10, 7:01 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)mindless.com> wrote:
>>>>> G-S wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I am in favour of proportional representation when it's used without
>>>>>> preferences (which I mentioned earlier :) [1]
>>>>> So you only a system which gives unfair advantage to the election of
>>>>> candidates from the major political parties, and in which some
>>>>> votes are
>>>>> never counted towards the election of a candidate. Some people (ok,
>>>>> maybe just Theo) complain that the current system of voting already
>>>>> gives the major parties an unfair advantage. Yours would only make it
>>>>> worse.
>>>>
>>>> How? Proportional voting, as practiced in some European countries, has
>>>> no preferences. Your party, or independent, gets 1% of the primary
>>>> vote in a 100 seat parliament, you get one seat. You get 20% of the
>>>> vote, you get 20 seats. You get no votes, you get to go home.What is
>>>> so difficult or unfair about that? Sure, it is more likely that one
>>>> party will not have an absolute majority, so they would have to learn
>>>> to work together, just like they were taught in Kindy, but have long
>>>> since forgotten. Would that be a bad thing? And yes, they regularly
>>>> elect independents.
>>>
>>> I'm sure it works very nicely when you use natural numbers, but much
>>> earlier in this thread you said something about 6.8% of the vote
>>> going to independants. If they get 6.8% of the seats in a 100 seat
>>> parliment, where do the votes of the .8% of the voters go? Round
>>> down and you throw votes away. Round up and you're electing
>>> candidates using votes which were not cast for them. I thought you
>>> said your system was more representative and democratic?
>>>
>>> How can independants get a significant % of the vote unless they
>>> group themselves on the ballot in the same way the party candidates
>>> are grouped? If they were listed separately they would be at a far
>>> disadvantage to the parties, if grouped, how does the voter know
>>> which independant they're voting for?
>>
>> Independants get a significant proportion of the vote now and don't
>> get a seat.
>>
>> In Theo's example the Greens would have about 8 seats and the Dems a
>> couple of seats and the Libs and Labor would have the rest.
>
> What? No independant members of parliament despite getting a
> significant proportion of the vote? That doesn't sound anything like
> the system that Theo described. Are you sure you understand how your
> preferred voting system works?

Are you sure you understood what I wrote Nev?

Because that statement doesn't make sense (it sounds like you've read
what I wrote backwards...)


G-S
From: G-S on
Nev.. wrote:
> G-S wrote:
>> Nev.. wrote:
>>> G-S wrote:
>>>> Nev.. wrote:
>>>>> G-S wrote:
>>>>>> Nev.. wrote:
>>>>>>> Pietro wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:7tWdnbii84EvfvLWnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au...
>>>>>>>>> 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 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While that's mostly true in the lower house, in the upper house
>>>>>>> with it's quota system, there is the possibility for left over
>>>>>>> votes which initially went to one of the two major parties
>>>>>>> candidates flowing down to smaller parties or independants if the
>>>>>>> major party does not field enough candidates to utilize all of
>>>>>>> the votes cast in their favour, or if one or more of their
>>>>>>> candidates fail to secure sufficient votes to meet a quota.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is I understand how fundy man got elected...
>>>>>
>>>>> I got the impression that you were for the notion of proportional
>>>>> representation, and now you appear to be not happy when it is put
>>>>> into practice. It's quite puzzling.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am in favour of proportional representation when it's used without
>>>> preferences (which I mentioned earlier :) [1]
>>>
>>> So you only a system which gives unfair advantage to the election of
>>> candidates from the major political parties, and in which some votes
>>> are never counted towards the election of a candidate. Some people
>>> (ok, maybe just Theo) complain that the current system of voting
>>> already gives the major parties an unfair advantage. Yours would
>>> only make it worse.
>>
>> The current system severely disadvantages candidates from minor
>> parties to the point where they can almost never be elected in the
>> lower house and are disadvantaged in the upper house compared to the
>> major parties.
>
> As mentioned in a previous post, every single state & territory +
> commonwealth includes independant or green members. So your "almost
> never" translates into the real world as "almost always".
>
Almost never (assumed) "gets a number of seats in proportion to their
primary vote" (which you knew was what I meant already) :)


G-S
From: G-S on
bikerbetty wrote:

>
> British MPs have backed holding a referendum on whether to scrap the
> country's first-past-the-post voting system and move towards a
> preferential voting system similar to that used in Australia.
>
> The move would be the biggest electoral shake up in the UK in
> generations.
>

The pollies have realised that the Australian system gives them more
power and the people less and are eyeing the Australian system with some
relish...

Doesn't surprise me at all.


G-S
From: Nev.. on
G-S wrote:
> Nev.. wrote:
>> G-S wrote:
>>> Nev.. wrote:
>>>> theo wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 10, 7:01 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)mindless.com> wrote:
>>>>>> G-S wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am in favour of proportional representation when it's used without
>>>>>>> preferences (which I mentioned earlier :) [1]
>>>>>> So you only a system which gives unfair advantage to the election of
>>>>>> candidates from the major political parties, and in which some
>>>>>> votes are
>>>>>> never counted towards the election of a candidate. Some people (ok,
>>>>>> maybe just Theo) complain that the current system of voting already
>>>>>> gives the major parties an unfair advantage. Yours would only
>>>>>> make it
>>>>>> worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> How? Proportional voting, as practiced in some European countries, has
>>>>> no preferences. Your party, or independent, gets 1% of the primary
>>>>> vote in a 100 seat parliament, you get one seat. You get 20% of the
>>>>> vote, you get 20 seats. You get no votes, you get to go home.What is
>>>>> so difficult or unfair about that? Sure, it is more likely that one
>>>>> party will not have an absolute majority, so they would have to learn
>>>>> to work together, just like they were taught in Kindy, but have long
>>>>> since forgotten. Would that be a bad thing? And yes, they regularly
>>>>> elect independents.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure it works very nicely when you use natural numbers, but much
>>>> earlier in this thread you said something about 6.8% of the vote
>>>> going to independants. If they get 6.8% of the seats in a 100 seat
>>>> parliment, where do the votes of the .8% of the voters go? Round
>>>> down and you throw votes away. Round up and you're electing
>>>> candidates using votes which were not cast for them. I thought you
>>>> said your system was more representative and democratic?
>>>>
>>>> How can independants get a significant % of the vote unless they
>>>> group themselves on the ballot in the same way the party candidates
>>>> are grouped? If they were listed separately they would be at a far
>>>> disadvantage to the parties, if grouped, how does the voter know
>>>> which independant they're voting for?
>>>
>>> Independants get a significant proportion of the vote now and don't
>>> get a seat.
>>>
>>> In Theo's example the Greens would have about 8 seats and the Dems a
>>> couple of seats and the Libs and Labor would have the rest.
>>
>> What? No independant members of parliament despite getting a
>> significant proportion of the vote? That doesn't sound anything like
>> the system that Theo described. Are you sure you understand how your
>> preferred voting system works?
>
> Are you sure you understood what I wrote Nev?
>
> Because that statement doesn't make sense (it sounds like you've read
> what I wrote backwards...)

It sounds like you don't know what independent means. Are you
suggesting that the members of the Greens Party and the Democrats Party
are "independant". The first line of the wiki entry for "Independent
(politician)" sums it up. In politics, an independent is a politician
who is not affiliated with any political party.

Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
From: bikerbetty on

"CrazyCam" <CrazyCam(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4b73208f$0$32748$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
> atec 77 wrote:
>> CrazyCam wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Did you ride a Daytona 675 before buying the Striple?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ride one? <snigger>
>>>
>>> I couldn't even sit on one in the showroom and reach the bars!
>>>
>> I am guessing you are 6ft or better ?
>
> Err, no.
>
> I used to be 5'10" before the operation, nowadays, perhaps 5'9".
>
> The operation resulted in bits of my back being stuck together, and thus,
> not being bendy like they are supposed to be.
>
> Because of this, most any sports bike is just too hard for me to ride,
> even "soft" imitation sports bikes, like say an R1100S, isn't very comfy
> for me.
>
>> I have tried riding one and it has to be built for the Bettys of the
>> world
>
> I haven't met the lovely Betty, but I'd be very surprised if she is
> sufficiently deformed to find a Daytona comfortable.
>
Nor is she tall enough or long-legged enough to find one rideable.

I haven't yet found a Triumph that I can sit on and touch the ground
properly. One of these days I'll get around to trying one of the new
Bonnevilles for size...

betty