> > > 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.
So it would make sense for the Democrats to push for a preferential voting system, wouldn't it. Unless they think that it won't happen again for a long time. You can't allow yourself to be threatened or coerced with dire warning about the result. Stay strong, they have more to lose than you. Think of the future.
> > >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.
You use your words for a thing, I use mine. We both seem to be getting confused by that. It would be better if we spoke the same language, I suggest we use mine. ;-)
Anyhow, you said:
"The point you missed is that a sane Ranked Ballot system will increase the number of electable parties."
Now I interpreted that to be a reference to election in multiple member electorates by proportional representation, rather than election in a single member electorate by simple preferential election. Because reducing the proportion of votes a candidate needs to win election is the obvious way to increase the number of electable parties. And PR does that.
However I see that you capitalised the "Ranked Ballot", perhaps you had in mind some special meaning for the words which are not immediately apparent? If so, then I have no idea what you are talking about. It doesn't help that you refer to things by some archaic 18th century term like "Condorcet". If you are so in favour of preferential voting reform in your country then surely you can appreciate that it doesn't help to refer to it by some weird exotic term, instead of the plain English descriptive term.
>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.
OK, I must have dreamed the reference to slavery and theocracy then.
>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.
Murdoch is an American now and "the nutcase who runs the radio stations" could be ay of dozens of people. But who's Hollinger? You aren't going to rename Kerry Packer as well as everything else are you. (The late media mogul, Australia's richest person, once nicknamed "the Goanna".) Christ you yanks have a nerve!
>Do you advocate for the end of Australian Empire, and their wonderful
>forays into Oceania for stability in Irian Jaya?
You are being absurd.
Austalia doesn't have an Empire, it is by inclination a colony and by long-standing practice a toady to the powerful. Its troops only ever fight overseas at the behest of either the British (for e.g. Boer war, WW1, Malaya, WW2, or the Americans Korea, Vietnam, etc.)
By Irian Jaya, I expect you mean West Papua? Once again, I request you be a little careful with language, to refer to an occupied territory by the name given it by the occupiers is to give comfort to the oppressors. I know of no Australian government forays into West Papua, though there are some non-government aid workers there from Australia.
And no I hate the way the Australian government toadies to the Indonesians. But toadying is what Australia does, and in fact Australia went along with the Indonesian annexation of West Papua, at the behest of The USA. An American mining company had a big interest in exploiting mineral resources there apparently and since the Indonesians had already sent their troop in to claim the place, the Americans were only interested in stability for the mining company. When the US says jump, Australia asks "how high", that's the way it is.
Despite this, it is still safe for Americans to walk the streets in Australia because, as I mentioned, Australians are grovelling supplicants by inclination. We're a little too tolerant I sometimes think.
>Or does ASIO/ASIS have your tongue?
Look, I know you aren't serious, but you need to watch that sort of talk on this list. Doug gets a bit trigger-happy sometimes and I'd hate our little debate to be cut short by your sudden involuntary departure from this world. So again, watch your language.
Don't shoot Doug, its harmless.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas