Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 
Send Topic Print
Voting by delegable proxy (Read 63606 times)
gold_medal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #75 - Jan 19th, 2013 at 2:40pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 19th, 2013 at 1:46pm:
GM, would it be reasonable to say that you have given up criticisng anything specific to my plan and instead have retreated to vague criticisms of the principle of democracy as 'mob rule'?


FD, dont be so arrogant as to assume that I didn't give your concept some consideration. I did. But I found it to be fatally flawed in a large number of areas. Now either take criticism like a grown up or be ignored. I dislike your plan for a multitude of reasons that I have previously identified but largely because it is horribly naive. it requires the commitment of an electorate to take a keen interest in govt policy and not just once every three years but weekly. good luck with that! You seem committed to your anti-party stance even to the extent of pretending that people don't group together naturally despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

I think your concept is fatally flawed and there is nothing in it that could be salvaged. Don't put it up for criticism if you don't want it and DO NOT assume that opponents are ignorant fools. I have provided a mountain of reasoning for my opposition. you don't have to like it, but you don't get to be ignorantly dismissive of it either.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #76 - Jan 19th, 2013 at 2:49pm
 
Quote:
FD, dont be so arrogant as to assume that I didn't give your concept some consideration. I did.


It is not an asusmption. There is plenty of evidence in what you have posted that not only did you fail to consider it, you failed to even understand it. You still have not presented anything that indicates you have even read the proposal.

Quote:
it requires the commitment of an electorate to take a keen interest in govt policy


There you go, you are doing it again. I have explained why it does not do this plenty of times, but you appear to think that repeating yourself is a substitute for rational debate.

Quote:
You seem committed to your anti-party stance even to the extent of pretending that people don't group together naturally


I did not say that.

Quote:
Don't put it up for criticism if you don't want it and DO NOT assume that opponents are ignorant fools.


Again, it is not an assumption.

Quote:
I have provided a mountain of reasoning for my opposition.


None of which actually stands up to reason.

Quote:
you don't have to like it, but you don't get to be ignorantly dismissive of it either.


Actually it is you who has been ignorantly dismissive. I have patiently explained why every point you made has been wrong, only for you to repeat it without further thought.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #77 - Jan 19th, 2013 at 2:58pm
 
I have put the article online. I have added a lot more details that address all of the criticisms you have made:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/voting-by-delegable-proxy.html
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
gold_medal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #78 - Jan 19th, 2013 at 4:40pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 19th, 2013 at 2:49pm:
Quote:
FD, dont be so arrogant as to assume that I didn't give your concept some consideration. I did.


It is not an asusmption. There is plenty of evidence in what you have posted that not only did you fail to consider it, you failed to even understand it. You still have not presented anything that indicates you have even read the proposal.

the 'evidence' you refer to is when i disagree with you. It has probably not yet entered your head that perhaps I read it and found giant flaws in it. It is actually possible for you to be wrong. you know.


Quote:
it requires the commitment of an electorate to take a keen interest in govt policy


There you go, you are doing it again. I have explained why it does not do this plenty of times, but you appear to think that repeating yourself is a substitute for rational debate.

you can explain it as often as you like but it still remains no more than your OPINION.  it is my opinion that such a model would demand large ommunity involvement to work. That is MY opinion. how about you get with the concept of 'opinion'?


Quote:
You seem committed to your anti-party stance even to the extent of pretending that people don't group together naturally


I did not say that.

You said precisely that. You stated that people dont tend to form groups of social (or political) peers. Frankly, that was pershpas the dumbest thing you've ever said since it is more obviously wrong than the average SOB comment.

Quote:
Don't put it up for criticism if you don't want it and DO NOT assume that opponents are ignorant fools.


Again, it is not an assumption.

Quote:
I have provided a mountain of reasoning for my opposition.


None of which actually stands up to reason.

by YOUR opinion. It may surprise you to know that youa re not the oracle of reason. Other people do it as well. but this 'opinion' thing seems to stymie you. and perhaps if you acknowledged some of the flaws you might get a better reception. Have you noticed everyone else has given up even discussing it with you? Ever wonder why?


Quote:
you don't have to like it, but you don't get to be ignorantly dismissive of it either.


Actually it is you who has been ignorantly dismissive. I have patiently explained why every point you made has been wrong, only for you to repeat it without further thought.


yeah... you are always right and I am always wrong - as is everyone else that disagrees with you on this thread. There is a hint there... There are two choices: you are THAT good or...  you are that arrogant.  I choose the latter.

You are bright and have some good ideas. this isnt one of them.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 94104
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #79 - Jan 19th, 2013 at 4:50pm
 
Longweekend just called the moderator arrogant.

Time for a holiday.  Smiley
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #80 - Jan 20th, 2013 at 9:39am
 
Quote:
yeah... you are always right and I am always wrong - as is everyone else that disagrees with you on this thread.


Who else is disagreeing with me? Have you read the proposal yet?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
gold_medal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #81 - Jan 20th, 2013 at 4:40pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 20th, 2013 at 9:39am:
Quote:
yeah... you are always right and I am always wrong - as is everyone else that disagrees with you on this thread.


Who else is disagreeing with me? Have you read the proposal yet?


everybody who posted on here?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 71950
Gender: male
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #82 - Jan 20th, 2013 at 4:46pm
 
gold_medal wrote on Jan 20th, 2013 at 4:40pm:
freediver wrote on Jan 20th, 2013 at 9:39am:
Quote:
yeah... you are always right and I am always wrong - as is everyone else that disagrees with you on this thread.


Who else is disagreeing with me? Have you read the proposal yet?


everybody who posted on here?


nope ... I've posted and I don't disagree ... you assume a lot for somebody who has the evidence in fron tof them. ..

I don't understand it fully, but in principle I think it sounds like its well worth considering.
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #83 - Mar 31st, 2013 at 10:24pm
 
gold_medal wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 6:46am:
freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 10:33pm:
Quote:
and the only people driving policy agendas would be minorities


You make this claim just about every single post. I ask you to explain every single time. You never do. Can you explain why you think this? It makes no sense. Our current system is far more likely to allow a minority to dictate policy than voting by delegable proxy (and ours is pretty good by international standards). It is pretty much the opposite of what you claim - this system ensures that it is the majority that decides.

Quote:
You have such a love of minorities you would do anything to ensure they get their unfair say.


Why do you think they would have an unfair say?


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.


In this post, and many other discussions on this forum, Longy (aka Gold Medal) promotes his view that democracy should not reflect the will of the majority - instead it should reflect his absurd notions of fairness towards political parties above the people they are supposed to represent.

Yet see how he changes his tune in this thread:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:11pm:
freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:09pm:
Since when is spinlessly following polls seen as honourable for politicians?


well there's that thing called democracy. you might want to look it up. it means the unassailable RIGHT to determine our own destiny as determined by the majority. it takes no concern over whether or not that destiny is ultimately right or wrong. Democracy is about the right to choose.


...suddenly he is all about the will of the majority, even to the point of rejecting concepts of right and wrong. He goes on to accuse me and others of not respecting and not understanding the concept of the will of the majority. What brought this on of course is not his desire to make a stand on democracy, but to score cheap points on a partisan issue. It is especially galling to see him accuse others of not understanding when he attacked the proposal here over six pages and still does not understand what it is.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
catprog
New Member
*
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #84 - Apr 7th, 2013 at 4:58pm
 
The only thing I can think of as a problem.

How do you ensure that your vote goes to the right person without letting people say "If you don't put your vote for me then you are fired."
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #85 - Apr 7th, 2013 at 6:14pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 10:24pm:
gold_medal wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 6:46am:
freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 10:33pm:
Quote:
and the only people driving policy agendas would be minorities


You make this claim just about every single post. I ask you to explain every single time. You never do. Can you explain why you think this? It makes no sense. Our current system is far more likely to allow a minority to dictate policy than voting by delegable proxy (and ours is pretty good by international standards). It is pretty much the opposite of what you claim - this system ensures that it is the majority that decides.

Quote:
You have such a love of minorities you would do anything to ensure they get their unfair say.


Why do you think they would have an unfair say?


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.


In this post, and many other discussions on this forum, Longy (aka Gold Medal) promotes his view that democracy should not reflect the will of the majority - instead it should reflect his absurd notions of fairness towards political parties above the people they are supposed to represent.

Yet see how he changes his tune in this thread:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:11pm:
freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:09pm:
Since when is spinlessly following polls seen as honourable for politicians?


well there's that thing called democracy. you might want to look it up. it means the unassailable RIGHT to determine our own destiny as determined by the majority. it takes no concern over whether or not that destiny is ultimately right or wrong. Democracy is about the right to choose.


...suddenly he is all about the will of the majority, even to the point of rejecting concepts of right and wrong. He goes on to accuse me and others of not respecting and not understanding the concept of the will of the majority. What brought this on of course is not his desire to make a stand on democracy, but to score cheap points on a partisan issue. It is especially galling to see him accuse others of not understanding when he attacked the proposal here over six pages and still does not understand what it is.


you really can be quite a jerk. I have said nothing of the sort in fact I say quite the opposite. But like all true left-wing zealots/hypocrites anything short of 100% agreement is anathema and so out comes the abuse and name calling.

I support rule of the majority. I define 'majority' differently to you. to me - a majority means more than anyone else
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #86 - Apr 7th, 2013 at 8:04pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 6:14pm:
I support rule of the majority. I define 'majority' differently to you. to me - a majority means more than anyone else


Why don't you redefine mandate while you are at it? Oh wait, you just did.

Quote:
I have said nothing of the sort in fact I say quite the opposite.


Of course you say the opposite. It is called contradicting yourself and being a hypocrite, and I don't have to redefine those terms to apply them to you. I can quote you on any of it if you want, so go ahead and pick something you think I am wrong about.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 7th, 2013 at 8:12pm by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #87 - Apr 7th, 2013 at 8:07pm
 
catprog wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 4:58pm:
The only thing I can think of as a problem.

How do you ensure that your vote goes to the right person without letting people say "If you don't put your vote for me then you are fired."


Voting could still be by secret ballot if that is what you are worried about.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
catprog
New Member
*
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #88 - Apr 7th, 2013 at 8:24pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 8:07pm:
catprog wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 4:58pm:
The only thing I can think of as a problem.

How do you ensure that your vote goes to the right person without letting people say "If you don't put your vote for me then you are fired."


Voting could still be by secret ballot if that is what you are worried about.


How do you change your delegate then?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #89 - Apr 7th, 2013 at 8:32pm
 
Obviously for a system where you can change your vote at any time there would have to be an IT system that remembers your vote.

If you aren't comfortable with that the concept applies equally well to paper ballot voting once every three years as per our current system.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 
Send Topic Print