I went to college where only Reds taught the Humanities and I was a Humanities major.
I never have voted for a Republican but in 1992 right after college I voted for Lenora Fulani.
> At 6:14 PM -0400 8/4/06, Josh Narins wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> The Republicans were the side opposed to slavery weren't they?
The Republicans didn't exist when Henry Clay and Lewis Cass were defeated. They were Whigs.
They were defeated not by the masses, not by the electoral college, but by radical abolitionists. The resuls were _a_ _direct_ _consequence_ of not having a monotonic, Condorcet, ranked ballot system, was that the Pro-Slavery candidates one.
> > You prefer Theocracy.
>
> I think the US is perhaps constituted with an elected monarchy. (A
> constitutional monarchy, like Australia. Except the US monarch is the
> executive government as well, like absolute monarchs of pre-modern
> societies, though only for a limited time.) But the US is not quite a
> theocracy. If anything, GW Bush could be said to be a great
> innoculation against whatever theocratic tendencies the US has.
James G. Blaine, the strongest proponent of Separation between Church and State who ever ran for President, was defeated. He was defeated, to Blaine's own understanding, by one of his ardent anti-Papist supporters whose "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion" quote alienated Catholics from him.
Blaine the Republican was defeated by two third parties, one led by a Radical Republican, and one by a Prohibitionist. Blaine was closer to both of these parties than the Democrats.
> > You prefer
> >Segregation.
>
> Come again?
When Theodore Roosevelt ran against his own former Vice President Taft, they split the Republican Party vote throughout the country. Woodrow Wilson only achieved 50% in the eleven States of the Confederacy. I will admit that the result of the 1912 election would have, as a result, been thrown to the US House. In that House of 435 people, I can only guess that the Segrationist, Woodrow Wilson, the third place winner _if_ a monotonic, Condorcet system had been in use in the States, would have been defeated.
> > You prefer George Walker Bush.
>
> Strategically.
Over Kerry, I can follow the strategy. Kerry was a terrible candidate.
But over Gore?
That's the election I'm talking about, 2000, when Nader obviously cost Gore Florida and New Hampshire. Florida and New Hampshire, where many pro-Green voters actually voted Gore, because they voted tactically.
Any monotonic, Condorcet voting system would have allowed more Green votes to be cast in those two States, and would have resulted in a Gore election.
> >Those are the results you advocate.
>
> No use denying it, someone here is sure to remember me advocating a
> vote for GW Bush. I deny advocating slavery, segregation and
> theocracy though.
>
> >And you call ME reactionary?
>
> No, I suggested that a particular position you were advocating was
> somewhat reactionary. You are more than your stance on one issue.
> Don't take it personally unless I say you are a reactionary per se.
>
> >Are you a Communist who votes Republican because you think it means the
> >revolution will come sooner?
>
> Not THE revolution, but Bush the Smaller has certainly brought the US
> empire closer to collapse, as I predicted he would. Obviously its a
> matter of perspective, but from my perspective that is a good thing,
> in the long run.
>
> But I wouldn't think less of you for believing otherwise. (See, now
> THAT was a personal insult. Actually, I didn't mean it, I WOULD think
> less of you if I thought you desired the US empire to continue any
> longer than could be avoided.)
>
> Anyhow, now that you've changed the subject I'm getting bored with
> this discussion.
A half dozen times you have proved yourself to be talking far beyond your wisdom. You say I was talking about PR, when I never do.
At no point have I ever drifed from the topic I introduced with this thread, which was Condorcet (Schulze/Tideman) balloting and the consequences of not having it.
Bill,
I have to remember that things are a lot worse in Australia. That Murdoch, and the nutcase who runs the radio stations down there, and (until recently) Hollinger have been feeding your entire nation's people a line so filled with crap that you are living in a land of news zombies.
Do you advocate for the end of Australian Empire, and their wonderful forays into Oceania for stability in Irian Jaya?
Or does ASIO/ASIS have your tongue?
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk