freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 10:33pm:


because you continually promote these special olympics types of systems that seek to give representation and power to parties that can scarcely get any votes. the concept of majority is used far too literally by some. if a party scores 48% of the primary vote while its nearest competitor gets 30% then they have won the election fair and square and by a significant margin. all of our ideas want to wring your hands in horror at the 52% who didnt vote for them.

Its really a simple concept in the end. best candidate wins. stop trying to give an artifical leg-up to some trassexual gay polygamy party candidate who gets 1% of the vote and you seem to think deserves representation. you stress about the 52% above but ignore the 99% in this case.

as I said in the last post - points for originality and effort but it is a disaster with more holes than swiss cheese.

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:


what makes you think that parties are something intrinsically undemocratic and should be gotten rid of? IN a Utopian and utterly theoretical world you might have a point but in the real world, people clump together into groups that share similar beliefs and values eg PARTIES. any attempt to get rid of their influence is pointless and will continue to exist as long as people continue to gather in groups (ie forever).

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:


compared to your solution, YES. Im a fan of the preferential system but I believe there should be a modification that eliminates a candidate if they are more than 10% behind the primary vote winner. In most cases the results are fair but it is never fair when someone gets 48% of the vote and is defeated by someone with 25%. dont bother arguing the point. these are the situations that show the weaknesses of preferential voting.

how do you think a crook like bush got in?

electronic votes in florida decide the US pres?

bloodline

many clowns cue the music and dance

to the illusion

many will be leaving that have hardened their heart

mother earth speaks volumes now

and this is vast

be at peace

namaste

-:)

Quote:


I don't. I think what you are promoting is inherently undemocratic. It is you who keeps putting the aspirations of political parties ahead of democracy.

Quote:


Not everyone does. Most people prefer to think for themselves. Clumping into parties is largely a response to the flaws in our system, not something fundamental to human nature, and certain not something that needs your protection.

Quote:


I am not trying to get rid of them.

Quote:


I am not debating your concept of fairness, no matter how vacuus it is. Rather I am questioning the relevance of fairness. Democracy is not about the rights of politicians or fairness to politicians. It is about representing the people. By harping on about winners and gold medals and fairness you are completely missing the point. I am not sure how many different ways I can make this point.

Quote:


So why do you reject the will of the people and replace it with you absurd concepts of fairness to politicians?

Quote:


Earlier you were complaining about constant elections. You go from one extreme to the other. The only consistency is that you are confused.

Quote:


IF the people want a stable government they will get it. If they want a new government they will get it. What is guaranteed is that the outcome reflects the will of the people.

Quote:


You are wrong about that too. In fact this is another advantage of this system over other systems. The more popular MPs would have far more stable jobs than under the current system. Howard for example would not have lost his seat on the same day he lost the prime ministership.

Quote:


Can I at least ask that you make some effort to understand how it works before passing judgement on whether it will work? You have been dissing the idea from the beginning, before you had any clue at all what it even was, apparently before you even read it. You got some strange idea in your head that it is bad because of minor parties or some other silly reason and stopped thinking. If you put half as much effort into trying to understand it as you put into making up stupid arguments against it you would realise that it is actually quite a simple and effective system.

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 9:35pm:


Gangs. Clubs, Socali groups. Peer groups. Political parties. activist groups. special interest groups.

EVERYONE GROUPS TOGETHER. even our so-called independent MPs have grouped together into two sections.

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 9:35pm:


'popular' meaning voting in support of any idiotic plan that may be supported by the handful of idiots that drive the process.

And men of principle like Howard wouldnt last a moment. Can you imagine a GST passing in such a system?