[lbo-talk] combined e-mail ;)

[Josh Narins]

> At 10:00 AM -0400 7/4/06, Josh Narins wrote:
> 
> > > >The point you missed is that a sane Ranked Ballot system will increase 
> > the
> >> >number of electable parties.
> >>
> >> You miss my point, somehow. A "ranked ballot system" by which I take
> >> you to mean preferential voting wouldn't necessarily permit an
> >> increase in *electable* minor party candidates. (Maybe the opposite,
> >> since preferential voting means a candidate for a single-member seat
> >> must attain over 50% of the two-party preferred vote. Whereas under
> >> first-past-the-post it is possible for a candidate who is the last
> >> choice of a significant majority of voters to get elected, so long as
> >> he or she is the first choice of more voters than any other
> >> candidate. That can't possibly happen with preferential voting.
> >
> >You must be an expert. Certainly not at voting math, but at something.
> >
> >In neither Schulze nor Tideman must the winning candidate get over 50%
> >of the two party preferred.
>
> Yes, these systems however are designed to do the opposite of what 
> proportional representation does. they are mutations designed to 
> prevent minority groups who are vehemently opposed by a majority of 
> the population from being represented in proportion to their voting 
> strength. Or at Least Schulze is, never heard of the other one. I 
> don't know why you'd mention such systems in the same breath as 
> proportional representation though, it wouldn't have occurred to me.

I never brought up PR, Bill.  I don't talk about it.

Not only that, I find your characterization of Schulze to be backwards.
The difference between Schulze and Tideman is very small. One uses
absolute victories, one uses margins.


> Obviously a system designed to *thwart* proportional representation 
> isn't a proportional representation system.
> 
> >The main point is that people in an FPTP system _must_ hedge their bets,
> >and vote "lesser of two evils" in order to vote strategically.
> 
> That would be to vote tactically, not strategically. If you wanted to 
> be strategic, you'd keep advocating a vote for the minor parties 
> instead of the lesser of the two evils, hopefully causing the lesser 
> evil to keep losing elections it could win if there was preferential 
> voting. The lesser evil must eventually realise that voter reform was 
> very much in their interest and make it their first priority. Apon 
> which you might switch to advocating a vote for for the lesser evil.


> > The
> >result, time and time again, when a third party has taken part in the
> >Presidential election, has been the defeat of the more progressive of
> >the two mainstream candidates.
> 
> Great! Keep up the good work.
> 
> >The Liberty (Abolitionist) Party! Twice they defeated the anti-slavery
> >Presidential candidate (Henry Clay and Lewis Cass).
> >The Greenback (fiat money) Party.
> >The Bull Moose (TR) Party.
> >The Greens in 2000.
> 
> The more progressive of the two mainstream candidates is obviously as 
> thick as two short planks if it hasn't worked out how to solve its 
> problem then. Dumber than George Bush. They deserve to lose.

I see, you preferred Slavery. You prefer Theocracy. You prefer
Segregation. You prefer George Walker Bush.

Those are the results you advocate.

And you call ME reactionary?

Are you a Communist who votes Republican because you think it means the
revolution will come sooner?

[snipped]