On 2023-06-01 16:39, Kevrob wrote:
> On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-06-01 06:59, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> I detest Trump, and nearly all his actions. I'd like to see him behind
>>> bars. But we should be honest: He was asking a stupid question,
>>> not asserting it was a cure.
>> Split that hair if you like.
>
> https://timjwise.medium.com/im-just-asking-questions-is-the-rhetoric-of-assholes-and-grifters-5cd0825daac
>

Precisely so.

In article <367187f4-863a-4511-915d-d5ca2f29c4cbn@googlegroups.com>,
pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 7:39:16 PM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>> > On 2023-06-01 06:59, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > > I detest Trump, and nearly all his actions. I'd like to see him behind
>> > > bars. But we should be honest: He was asking a stupid question,
>> > > not asserting it was a cure.
>> > Split that hair if you like.
>>
>https://timjwise.medium.com/im-just-asking-questions-is-the-rhetoric-of-assholes-and-grifters-5cd0825daac
>
>It absolutely is, but refusing to acknowledge the hairsplitting just
>gives the MAGAts another
>reason to dismiss you and disregard the truth.

The MAGAts will do that no matter what one does, therefore the only
reasonble approach is to disregard their reaction.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 7:06:17 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 11:29:18 AM UTC-6, Johnny1A wrote:
>
> > Let's see that evidence (note that reports in the left-wing media in
> > itself does not constitute evidence, you would be requried to show
> > why they should be believed).
> The so-called "left-wing media" is also called the "mainstream media"
> by its detractors - but that _second_ pejorative admits the important
> thing about it: it is that portion of the media which is respected and
> has a reputation for unbiased and accurate reporting.

LOL

There _was_ a time when the liberal media had such a reputation. It was undeserved even then, but they _were_ the mainstream media by virtue of being an effective monopoly.

In the old days, every big city had multiple newspapers, usually at least one lined up with every major political, social, or economic alignment or POV. They were often dishonest, often histrionic, but their very multiplicity helped to get stories out, if the Republican paper ignored a story the Dem paper would cover it, if the union-friendly paper tried to bury a story the pro-business paper would print it, etc.

The rise of broadcasting produced a few radio and later TV networks, the huge variety of papers shrank down to a handful, and the 'tone' of the coverage became more restrained and superficially respectable-sounding, (though not necessarily more honest). And to be fair, the outlook of the big media organs in the 1940s and 1950s were much closer to the general public's than they would be later. But later, the divergence got bigger and bigger, and the 'old media' became just one source among many, and became more dependent on ever-shrinking audience of upper-middle-class liberals. Today, the only people who still think the 'mainstream media' are 'unbiased and accurate' tend to be liberal Democrats.

>
> That's one reason why they should be believed, for starters.
>
> John Savard

Since the claim of 'unbiased and accurate' is factually false, it does not provide a reason to put faith in them.

On Tue, 30 May 2023 02:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:

>In article <ie2a7i1bsim2lbt2c5f5aauthqgn2srht0@4ax.com>,
>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent
>>"minority government" in power as the last two Canadian elections
>>show.
>
>Canada's is a parlamentary system, not a system with
>ranked choice balloting. Those are entirely different
>things.
>
>One feature of a ranked choice system is that it tends to
>disadvantage the extremes on both ends, and advantage those
>who have more appeal in the center.
>
>(Extremists may consider this a bug)

In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
members of the party to pull together to support the winner.

This was a critical problem in a Canadian leadership contest where it
went 14 ballots with one candidate leading on the first 13 ballots and
overtaken on the final ballot with the result that he did NOT get the
opportunity to do 'the concession speech', then split the party by
creating a splinter group which cost the party the next general
election.....

On Tue, 30 May 2023 03:11:01 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

>In article <u53mgv$1reeo$1@dont-email.me>,
>Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>>In article <ie2a7i1bsim2lbt2c5f5aauthqgn2srht0@4ax.com>,
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent
>>>"minority government" in power as the last two Canadian elections
>>>show.
>>
>>Canada's is a parlamentary system, not a system with
>>ranked choice balloting. Those are entirely different
>>things.
>
>Parliamentary is orthagonal to this. It's like saying Canada
>is rectangular, not Anglophone.
>
>Canada is first past the post. It's possible for us to use
>ranked choice, provided we figure out how to convince politicians
>who got into office with FPTP that ranked choice is in their
>interest. The Liberals floated a change a while back but when
>their preference didn't seem like it would prevail, spiked it.

I don't know about this but BC had a referendum on single transferable
ballot that got 50% but it was considered a constitutional matter and
therefore a higher percentage to pass (can't remember but 60%?) which
it didn't get. I'm pretty sure there was another province that did
such a referendum and it too didn't get the required percentage to
pass.

On Tue, 30 May 2023 16:19:17 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:

>In article <ad2662f7-3a84-4167-93b8-07db6336e943n@googlegroups.com>,
>Andrew McDowell <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:
>>A claim on ranked choice voting that I found amusing - one way that it
>>disadvantages extreme positions is that extremists know that the one
>>true way is the only way, and all the other politicians are Nazis, so
>>they only use their first preference. Voters who are prepared to put up
>>with second best and list further preferences have more influence.
>
>Heh. That may be. If I were voting ranked choice,
>I'd be ranking all the candidates right down to the
>very end, with Green and CPUSA dead last. (Assuming
>the Nazis or Klukkers weren't on the ballot, in which
>case they'd take dead last.)

You wouldn't need to - if you listed only the parties you would agree
to have your vote transferred to and left those you would let hell
freeze over before you voted for them (like most of us here would feel
about most of the parties you name) it would have the same effect.

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 12:12:54 AM UTC-4, Johnny1A wrote:

> Since the claim of 'unbiased and accurate' is factually false, it does not provide a reason to put faith in them.

All your arguments apply to 'right wing' sources as well - Fox News, for example, has been
shown in court to have knowingly reported falsehoods so as not to alienate its audience.

How do *you* determine what's true, Johnny? What sources do you regard as trustworthy?
RealRawNews.com?

pt

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 2:23:08 AM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2023 02:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
> <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <ie2a7i1bsim2lbt2c...@4ax.com>,
> >The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
> >>The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent
> >>"minority government" in power as the last two Canadian elections
> >>show.
> >
> >Canada's is a parlamentary system, not a system with
> >ranked choice balloting. Those are entirely different
> >things.
> >
> >One feature of a ranked choice system is that it tends to
> >disadvantage the extremes on both ends, and advantage those
> >who have more appeal in the center.
> >
> >(Extremists may consider this a bug)
> In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
> prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
> members of the party to pull together to support the winner.

That makes not the slightest sense.

>
> This was a critical problem in a Canadian leadership contest where it
> went 14 ballots with one candidate leading on the first 13 ballots and
> overtaken on the final ballot with the result that he did NOT get the
> opportunity to do 'the concession speech', then split the party by
> creating a splinter group which cost the party the next general
> election.....

The blame here lies with the people themselves, not the ballot system.

Personally I would have loved to hear Bernier's non-concession speech.
I imagine that it was better for the conservative party that it not be given.

Had Bernier just gone along like an adult, he'd have won the next time and
would now be our PM in waiting. But when you put children in high office
this is what happens.

William Hyde

On 6/5/2023 3:29 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 2:23:08 AM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 02:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
>> <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <ie2a7i1bsim2lbt2c...@4ax.com>,
>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>> The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent
>>>> "minority government" in power as the last two Canadian elections
>>>> show.
>>>
>>> Canada's is a parlamentary system, not a system with
>>> ranked choice balloting. Those are entirely different
>>> things.
>>>
>>> One feature of a ranked choice system is that it tends to
>>> disadvantage the extremes on both ends, and advantage those
>>> who have more appeal in the center.
>>>
>>> (Extremists may consider this a bug)
>> In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
>> prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
>> members of the party to pull together to support the winner.
>
> That makes not the slightest sense.
>
Of course not! It's a political convention. :P

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 4:23:08 PM UTC+10, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2023 02:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
> <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <ie2a7i1bsim2lbt2c...@4ax.com>,
> >The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
> >>The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent
> >>"minority government" in power as the last two Canadian elections
> >>show.
> >
> >Canada's is a parlamentary system, not a system with
> >ranked choice balloting. Those are entirely different
> >things.
> >
> >One feature of a ranked choice system is that it tends to
> >disadvantage the extremes on both ends, and advantage those
> >who have more appeal in the center.
> >
> >(Extremists may consider this a bug)
> In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
> prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
> members of the party to pull together to support the winner.

How does that prevent concession speeches?
Presumably there's some ceremony or, at the least, a press conference where the winner is announced
What stops the losing candidates from giving a speech there?
>
> This was a critical problem in a Canadian leadership contest where it
> went 14 ballots with one candidate leading on the first 13 ballots and
> overtaken on the final ballot with the result that he did NOT get the
> opportunity to do 'the concession speech',

Did he not get the opportunity or did he not take the opportunity?
It's a very different situation

> then split the party by
> creating a splinter group which cost the party the next general
> election.....

If he did that then he presumably didn't want to give a concession speech calling on everybody to pull together behind the candidate

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:06:29 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 4:23:08?PM UTC+10, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 02:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
>> <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ie2a7i1bsim2lbt2c...@4ax.com>,
>> >The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>> >>The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent
>> >>"minority government" in power as the last two Canadian elections
>> >>show.
>> >
>> >Canada's is a parlamentary system, not a system with
>> >ranked choice balloting. Those are entirely different
>> >things.
>> >
>> >One feature of a ranked choice system is that it tends to
>> >disadvantage the extremes on both ends, and advantage those
>> >who have more appeal in the center.
>> >
>> >(Extremists may consider this a bug)
>> In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
>> prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
>> members of the party to pull together to support the winner.
>
>How does that prevent concession speeches?
>Presumably there's some ceremony or, at the least, a press conference where the winner is announced
>What stops the losing candidates from giving a speech there?
>>
>> This was a critical problem in a Canadian leadership contest where it
>> went 14 ballots with one candidate leading on the first 13 ballots and
>> overtaken on the final ballot with the result that he did NOT get the
>> opportunity to do 'the concession speech',
>
>Did he not get the opportunity or did he not take the opportunity?
>It's a very different situation
>
>> then split the party by
>> creating a splinter group which cost the party the next general
>> election.....
>
>If he did that then he presumably didn't want to give a concession speech calling on everybody to pull together behind the candidate

I /think/ the point is that the voting system leaves #2 believing he
could and should and would (with a different voting system) have been
#1 and so not interested in conceding.

IOW, it blurs the concept of "winner" and so also of "loser".

Imagine what Trump could have said if the 2020 election used one of
these stylish new voting systems. How many more points at which he
could allege fraud.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 6/6/2023 8:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:06:29 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
> <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 4:23:08?PM UTC+10, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 02:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
>>> <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <ie2a7i1bsim2lbt2c...@4ax.com>,
>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>> The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent
>>>>> "minority government" in power as the last two Canadian elections
>>>>> show.
>>>>
>>>> Canada's is a parlamentary system, not a system with
>>>> ranked choice balloting. Those are entirely different
>>>> things.
>>>>
>>>> One feature of a ranked choice system is that it tends to
>>>> disadvantage the extremes on both ends, and advantage those
>>>> who have more appeal in the center.
>>>>
>>>> (Extremists may consider this a bug)
>>> In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
>>> prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
>>> members of the party to pull together to support the winner.
>>
>> How does that prevent concession speeches?
>> Presumably there's some ceremony or, at the least, a press conference where the winner is announced
>> What stops the losing candidates from giving a speech there?
>>>
>>> This was a critical problem in a Canadian leadership contest where it
>>> went 14 ballots with one candidate leading on the first 13 ballots and
>>> overtaken on the final ballot with the result that he did NOT get the
>>> opportunity to do 'the concession speech',
>>
>> Did he not get the opportunity or did he not take the opportunity?
>> It's a very different situation
>>
>>> then split the party by
>>> creating a splinter group which cost the party the next general
>>> election.....
>>
>> If he did that then he presumably didn't want to give a concession speech calling on everybody to pull together behind the candidate
>
> I /think/ the point is that the voting system leaves #2 believing he
> could and should and would (with a different voting system) have been
> #1 and so not interested in conceding.
>
> IOW, it blurs the concept of "winner" and so also of "loser".
>
> Imagine what Trump could have said if the 2020 election used one of
> these stylish new voting systems. How many more points at which he
> could allege fraud.

The voting system wouldn't have increased or decreased that individual's
efforts to toss the election results out.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 9:06:31 PM UTC-4, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 4:23:08 PM UTC+10, The Horny Goat wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 May 2023 02:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
> > <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <ie2a7i1bsim2lbt2c...@4ax.com>,
> > >The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
> > >>The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent
> > >>"minority government" in power as the last two Canadian elections
> > >>show.
> > >
> > >Canada's is a parlamentary system, not a system with
> > >ranked choice balloting. Those are entirely different
> > >things.
> > >
> > >One feature of a ranked choice system is that it tends to
> > >disadvantage the extremes on both ends, and advantage those
> > >who have more appeal in the center.
> > >
> > >(Extremists may consider this a bug)
> > In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
> > prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
> > members of the party to pull together to support the winner.
> How does that prevent concession speeches?
> Presumably there's some ceremony or, at the least, a press conference where the winner is announced
> What stops the losing candidates from giving a speech there?
> >
> > This was a critical problem in a Canadian leadership contest where it
> > went 14 ballots with one candidate leading on the first 13 ballots and
> > overtaken on the final ballot with the result that he did NOT get the
> > opportunity to do 'the concession speech',
> Did he not get the opportunity or did he not take the opportunity?
> It's a very different situation
> > then split the party by
> > creating a splinter group which cost the party the next general
> > election.....
> If he did that then he presumably didn't want to give a concession speech calling on everybody to pull together behind the candidate

Bernier believed that he lost the leadership not due to the voting system, but due to the dairy
industry, which, he said, bought the delegates from parts of rural Quebec, an area which
otherwise might have been expected to support him.

Of course, our selection of delegates for such conventions is a corrupt and shameless affair, a national
scandal, but Bernier didn't object until it was his ox being gored.

His speech, I expect, would have focused on this, and not at all been a call for unity, perhaps not even
a concession speech.

He's running in a by-election currently. The Conservatives are turning all the big guns on him, including calling
this libertarian a "liberal". Speaking of shameless...

William Hyde

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 10:21:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 6/6/2023 8:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:06:29 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
>> <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 4:23:08?PM UTC+10, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 02:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
>>>> <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <ie2a7i1bsim2lbt2c...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent
>>>>>> "minority government" in power as the last two Canadian elections
>>>>>> show.
>>>>>
>>>>> Canada's is a parlamentary system, not a system with
>>>>> ranked choice balloting. Those are entirely different
>>>>> things.
>>>>>
>>>>> One feature of a ranked choice system is that it tends to
>>>>> disadvantage the extremes on both ends, and advantage those
>>>>> who have more appeal in the center.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Extremists may consider this a bug)
>>>> In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
>>>> prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
>>>> members of the party to pull together to support the winner.
>>>
>>> How does that prevent concession speeches?
>>> Presumably there's some ceremony or, at the least, a press conference where the winner is announced
>>> What stops the losing candidates from giving a speech there?
>>>>
>>>> This was a critical problem in a Canadian leadership contest where it
>>>> went 14 ballots with one candidate leading on the first 13 ballots and
>>>> overtaken on the final ballot with the result that he did NOT get the
>>>> opportunity to do 'the concession speech',
>>>
>>> Did he not get the opportunity or did he not take the opportunity?
>>> It's a very different situation
>>>
>>>> then split the party by
>>>> creating a splinter group which cost the party the next general
>>>> election.....
>>>
>>> If he did that then he presumably didn't want to give a concession speech calling on everybody to pull together behind the candidate
>>
>> I /think/ the point is that the voting system leaves #2 believing he
>> could and should and would (with a different voting system) have been
>> #1 and so not interested in conceding.
>>
>> IOW, it blurs the concept of "winner" and so also of "loser".
>>
>> Imagine what Trump could have said if the 2020 election used one of
>> these stylish new voting systems. How many more points at which he
>> could allege fraud.
>
>The voting system wouldn't have increased or decreased that individual's
>efforts to toss the election results out.

If I understand the spiffy new systems correctly, he could have
alleged that the programs used to compute the winner were corrupt and
biased. With "one voter, one vote for one candidate", he did not have
that line of attack.

So, yes, his idiocy /could/ have been even worse than it was.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 6/7/2023 8:04 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 10:21:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/6/2023 8:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:06:29 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
>>> <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 4:23:08?PM UTC+10, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 02:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
>>>>> <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <ie2a7i1bsim2lbt2c...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent
>>>>>>> "minority government" in power as the last two Canadian elections
>>>>>>> show.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Canada's is a parlamentary system, not a system with
>>>>>> ranked choice balloting. Those are entirely different
>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One feature of a ranked choice system is that it tends to
>>>>>> disadvantage the extremes on both ends, and advantage those
>>>>>> who have more appeal in the center.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Extremists may consider this a bug)
>>>>> In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
>>>>> prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
>>>>> members of the party to pull together to support the winner.
>>>>
>>>> How does that prevent concession speeches?
>>>> Presumably there's some ceremony or, at the least, a press conference where the winner is announced
>>>> What stops the losing candidates from giving a speech there?
>>>>>
>>>>> This was a critical problem in a Canadian leadership contest where it
>>>>> went 14 ballots with one candidate leading on the first 13 ballots and
>>>>> overtaken on the final ballot with the result that he did NOT get the
>>>>> opportunity to do 'the concession speech',
>>>>
>>>> Did he not get the opportunity or did he not take the opportunity?
>>>> It's a very different situation
>>>>
>>>>> then split the party by
>>>>> creating a splinter group which cost the party the next general
>>>>> election.....
>>>>
>>>> If he did that then he presumably didn't want to give a concession speech calling on everybody to pull together behind the candidate
>>>
>>> I /think/ the point is that the voting system leaves #2 believing he
>>> could and should and would (with a different voting system) have been
>>> #1 and so not interested in conceding.
>>>
>>> IOW, it blurs the concept of "winner" and so also of "loser".
>>>
>>> Imagine what Trump could have said if the 2020 election used one of
>>> these stylish new voting systems. How many more points at which he
>>> could allege fraud.
>>
>> The voting system wouldn't have increased or decreased that individual's
>> efforts to toss the election results out.
>
> If I understand the spiffy new systems correctly, he could have
> alleged that the programs used to compute the winner were corrupt and
> biased. With "one voter, one vote for one candidate", he did not have
> that line of attack.
>
> So, yes, his idiocy /could/ have been even worse than it was.

He's basically accusing the _current_ system of being corrupt and
biased. The details of his accusations might have changed but the scale
of his effort would not have.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 12:03:12 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 6/7/2023 8:04 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 10:21:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> > <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/6/2023 8:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:06:29 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
> >>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 4:23:08?PM UTC+10, The Horny Goat wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 02:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
> >>>>> <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In article <ie2a7i1bsim2lbt2c...@4ax.com>,
> >>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>>> The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent
> >>>>>>> "minority government" in power as the last two Canadian elections
> >>>>>>> show.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Canada's is a parlamentary system, not a system with
> >>>>>> ranked choice balloting. Those are entirely different
> >>>>>> things.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> One feature of a ranked choice system is that it tends to
> >>>>>> disadvantage the extremes on both ends, and advantage those
> >>>>>> who have more appeal in the center.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (Extremists may consider this a bug)
> >>>>> In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
> >>>>> prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
> >>>>> members of the party to pull together to support the winner.
> >>>>
> >>>> How does that prevent concession speeches?
> >>>> Presumably there's some ceremony or, at the least, a press conference where the winner is announced
> >>>> What stops the losing candidates from giving a speech there?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This was a critical problem in a Canadian leadership contest where it
> >>>>> went 14 ballots with one candidate leading on the first 13 ballots and
> >>>>> overtaken on the final ballot with the result that he did NOT get the
> >>>>> opportunity to do 'the concession speech',
> >>>>
> >>>> Did he not get the opportunity or did he not take the opportunity?
> >>>> It's a very different situation
> >>>>
> >>>>> then split the party by
> >>>>> creating a splinter group which cost the party the next general
> >>>>> election.....
> >>>>
> >>>> If he did that then he presumably didn't want to give a concession speech calling on everybody to pull together behind the candidate
> >>>
> >>> I /think/ the point is that the voting system leaves #2 believing he
> >>> could and should and would (with a different voting system) have been
> >>> #1 and so not interested in conceding.
> >>>
> >>> IOW, it blurs the concept of "winner" and so also of "loser".
> >>>
> >>> Imagine what Trump could have said if the 2020 election used one of
> >>> these stylish new voting systems. How many more points at which he
> >>> could allege fraud.
> >>
> >> The voting system wouldn't have increased or decreased that individual's
> >> efforts to toss the election results out.
> >
> > If I understand the spiffy new systems correctly, he could have
> > alleged that the programs used to compute the winner were corrupt and
> > biased. With "one voter, one vote for one candidate", he did not have
> > that line of attack.
> >
> > So, yes, his idiocy /could/ have been even worse than it was.
> He's basically accusing the _current_ system of being corrupt and
> biased. The details of his accusations might have changed but the scale
> of his effort would not have.
> --

Any system that doesn't elect "me" is unfair and corrupt. It must be changed. Aren't those who are proposing the various ranked ballot systems saying the same thing?

John

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 1:04:09 AM UTC+10, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 10:21:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >On 6/6/2023 8:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:06:29 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
> >> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 4:23:08?PM UTC+10, The Horny Goat wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 02:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
> >>>> <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <ie2a7i1bsim2lbt2c...@4ax.com>,
> >>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>> The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent
> >>>>>> "minority government" in power as the last two Canadian elections
> >>>>>> show.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Canada's is a parlamentary system, not a system with
> >>>>> ranked choice balloting. Those are entirely different
> >>>>> things.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One feature of a ranked choice system is that it tends to
> >>>>> disadvantage the extremes on both ends, and advantage those
> >>>>> who have more appeal in the center.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (Extremists may consider this a bug)
> >>>> In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
> >>>> prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
> >>>> members of the party to pull together to support the winner.
> >>>
> >>> How does that prevent concession speeches?
> >>> Presumably there's some ceremony or, at the least, a press conference where the winner is announced
> >>> What stops the losing candidates from giving a speech there?
> >>>>
> >>>> This was a critical problem in a Canadian leadership contest where it
> >>>> went 14 ballots with one candidate leading on the first 13 ballots and
> >>>> overtaken on the final ballot with the result that he did NOT get the
> >>>> opportunity to do 'the concession speech',
> >>>
> >>> Did he not get the opportunity or did he not take the opportunity?
> >>> It's a very different situation
> >>>
> >>>> then split the party by
> >>>> creating a splinter group which cost the party the next general
> >>>> election.....
> >>>
> >>> If he did that then he presumably didn't want to give a concession speech calling on everybody to pull together behind the candidate
> >>
> >> I /think/ the point is that the voting system leaves #2 believing he
> >> could and should and would (with a different voting system) have been
> >> #1 and so not interested in conceding.
> >>
> >> IOW, it blurs the concept of "winner" and so also of "loser".
> >>
> >> Imagine what Trump could have said if the 2020 election used one of
> >> these stylish new voting systems. How many more points at which he
> >> could allege fraud.
> >
> >The voting system wouldn't have increased or decreased that individual's
> >efforts to toss the election results out.
> If I understand the spiffy new systems correctly, he could have
> alleged that the programs used to compute the winner were corrupt and
> biased.

In Australia we still use paper voting for a preferential election system
Aren't the individual US votes printed for the voter to check and pass in?
If so hand recounts are still supported

>With "one voter, one vote for one candidate", he did not have
> that line of attack.
>
> So, yes, his idiocy /could/ have been even worse than it was.

Nah, he's so far away from sane on this that pretty much nothing could increase his idiocy level there

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 10:41:11 AM UTC+10, John Halpenny wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 12:03:12 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> > On 6/7/2023 8:04 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> > > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 10:21:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> > > <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 6/6/2023 8:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:06:29 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
> > >>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 4:23:08?PM UTC+10, The Horny Goat wrote:
> > >>>>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 02:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
> > >>>>> <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> In article <ie2a7i1bsim2lbt2c...@4ax.com>,
> > >>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent
> > >>>>>>> "minority government" in power as the last two Canadian elections
> > >>>>>>> show.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Canada's is a parlamentary system, not a system with
> > >>>>>> ranked choice balloting. Those are entirely different
> > >>>>>> things.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> One feature of a ranked choice system is that it tends to
> > >>>>>> disadvantage the extremes on both ends, and advantage those
> > >>>>>> who have more appeal in the center.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> (Extremists may consider this a bug)
> > >>>>> In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
> > >>>>> prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
> > >>>>> members of the party to pull together to support the winner.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> How does that prevent concession speeches?
> > >>>> Presumably there's some ceremony or, at the least, a press conference where the winner is announced
> > >>>> What stops the losing candidates from giving a speech there?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This was a critical problem in a Canadian leadership contest where it
> > >>>>> went 14 ballots with one candidate leading on the first 13 ballots and
> > >>>>> overtaken on the final ballot with the result that he did NOT get the
> > >>>>> opportunity to do 'the concession speech',
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Did he not get the opportunity or did he not take the opportunity?
> > >>>> It's a very different situation
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> then split the party by
> > >>>>> creating a splinter group which cost the party the next general
> > >>>>> election.....
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If he did that then he presumably didn't want to give a concession speech calling on everybody to pull together behind the candidate
> > >>>
> > >>> I /think/ the point is that the voting system leaves #2 believing he
> > >>> could and should and would (with a different voting system) have been
> > >>> #1 and so not interested in conceding.
> > >>>
> > >>> IOW, it blurs the concept of "winner" and so also of "loser".
> > >>>
> > >>> Imagine what Trump could have said if the 2020 election used one of
> > >>> these stylish new voting systems. How many more points at which he
> > >>> could allege fraud.
> > >>
> > >> The voting system wouldn't have increased or decreased that individual's
> > >> efforts to toss the election results out.
> > >
> > > If I understand the spiffy new systems correctly, he could have
> > > alleged that the programs used to compute the winner were corrupt and
> > > biased. With "one voter, one vote for one candidate", he did not have
> > > that line of attack.
> > >
> > > So, yes, his idiocy /could/ have been even worse than it was.
> > He's basically accusing the _current_ system of being corrupt and
> > biased. The details of his accusations might have changed but the scale
> > of his effort would not have.
> >
> Any system that doesn't elect "me" is unfair and corrupt. It must be changed. Aren't those who are proposing the various ranked ballot systems saying the same thing?
>
No

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 09:03:09 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 6/7/2023 8:04 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 10:21:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/6/2023 8:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:06:29 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
>>>> <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 4:23:08?PM UTC+10, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 02:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
>>>>>> <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <ie2a7i1bsim2lbt2c...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent
>>>>>>>> "minority government" in power as the last two Canadian elections
>>>>>>>> show.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Canada's is a parlamentary system, not a system with
>>>>>>> ranked choice balloting. Those are entirely different
>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One feature of a ranked choice system is that it tends to
>>>>>>> disadvantage the extremes on both ends, and advantage those
>>>>>>> who have more appeal in the center.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Extremists may consider this a bug)
>>>>>> In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
>>>>>> prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
>>>>>> members of the party to pull together to support the winner.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does that prevent concession speeches?
>>>>> Presumably there's some ceremony or, at the least, a press conference where the winner is announced
>>>>> What stops the losing candidates from giving a speech there?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This was a critical problem in a Canadian leadership contest where it
>>>>>> went 14 ballots with one candidate leading on the first 13 ballots and
>>>>>> overtaken on the final ballot with the result that he did NOT get the
>>>>>> opportunity to do 'the concession speech',
>>>>>
>>>>> Did he not get the opportunity or did he not take the opportunity?
>>>>> It's a very different situation
>>>>>
>>>>>> then split the party by
>>>>>> creating a splinter group which cost the party the next general
>>>>>> election.....
>>>>>
>>>>> If he did that then he presumably didn't want to give a concession speech calling on everybody to pull together behind the candidate
>>>>
>>>> I /think/ the point is that the voting system leaves #2 believing he
>>>> could and should and would (with a different voting system) have been
>>>> #1 and so not interested in conceding.
>>>>
>>>> IOW, it blurs the concept of "winner" and so also of "loser".
>>>>
>>>> Imagine what Trump could have said if the 2020 election used one of
>>>> these stylish new voting systems. How many more points at which he
>>>> could allege fraud.
>>>
>>> The voting system wouldn't have increased or decreased that individual's
>>> efforts to toss the election results out.
>>
>> If I understand the spiffy new systems correctly, he could have
>> alleged that the programs used to compute the winner were corrupt and
>> biased. With "one voter, one vote for one candidate", he did not have
>> that line of attack.
>>
>> So, yes, his idiocy /could/ have been even worse than it was.
>
>He's basically accusing the _current_ system of being corrupt and
>biased. The details of his accusations might have changed but the scale
>of his effort would not have.

Except, of course, that there might be /new/ software vendors he and
his fans could have claimed had jimmied elections in, say, Albania
(just to pick a country at random).

New targets, new fund-raising possibilities, new lawsuits, and new
settlements to pay for defamation.

As I said, new points to attack.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 6/8/2023 8:53 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 09:03:09 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/7/2023 8:04 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 10:21:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/6/2023 8:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:06:29 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
>>>>> <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 4:23:08?PM UTC+10, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 02:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
>>>>>>> <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <ie2a7i1bsim2lbt2c...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent
>>>>>>>>> "minority government" in power as the last two Canadian elections
>>>>>>>>> show.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Canada's is a parlamentary system, not a system with
>>>>>>>> ranked choice balloting. Those are entirely different
>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One feature of a ranked choice system is that it tends to
>>>>>>>> disadvantage the extremes on both ends, and advantage those
>>>>>>>> who have more appeal in the center.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Extremists may consider this a bug)
>>>>>>> In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
>>>>>>> prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
>>>>>>> members of the party to pull together to support the winner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does that prevent concession speeches?
>>>>>> Presumably there's some ceremony or, at the least, a press conference where the winner is announced
>>>>>> What stops the losing candidates from giving a speech there?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This was a critical problem in a Canadian leadership contest where it
>>>>>>> went 14 ballots with one candidate leading on the first 13 ballots and
>>>>>>> overtaken on the final ballot with the result that he did NOT get the
>>>>>>> opportunity to do 'the concession speech',
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did he not get the opportunity or did he not take the opportunity?
>>>>>> It's a very different situation
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then split the party by
>>>>>>> creating a splinter group which cost the party the next general
>>>>>>> election.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If he did that then he presumably didn't want to give a concession speech calling on everybody to pull together behind the candidate
>>>>>
>>>>> I /think/ the point is that the voting system leaves #2 believing he
>>>>> could and should and would (with a different voting system) have been
>>>>> #1 and so not interested in conceding.
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW, it blurs the concept of "winner" and so also of "loser".
>>>>>
>>>>> Imagine what Trump could have said if the 2020 election used one of
>>>>> these stylish new voting systems. How many more points at which he
>>>>> could allege fraud.
>>>>
>>>> The voting system wouldn't have increased or decreased that individual's
>>>> efforts to toss the election results out.
>>>
>>> If I understand the spiffy new systems correctly, he could have
>>> alleged that the programs used to compute the winner were corrupt and
>>> biased. With "one voter, one vote for one candidate", he did not have
>>> that line of attack.
>>>
>>> So, yes, his idiocy /could/ have been even worse than it was.
>>
>> He's basically accusing the _current_ system of being corrupt and
>> biased. The details of his accusations might have changed but the scale
>> of his effort would not have.
>
> Except, of course, that there might be /new/ software vendors he and
> his fans could have claimed had jimmied elections in, say, Albania
> (just to pick a country at random).
>
> New targets, new fund-raising possibilities, new lawsuits, and new
> settlements to pay for defamation.
>
> As I said, new points to attack.

Like I said, the _DETAILS_ might of changed but the _SCALE_ of his
effort would not have.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:41:11 PM UTC-4, John Halpenny wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 12:03:12 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> > On 6/7/2023 8:04 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> > > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 10:21:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> > > <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 6/6/2023 8:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:06:29 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
> > >>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 4:23:08?PM UTC+10, The Horny Goat wrote:
> > >>>>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 02:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
> > >>>>> <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> In article <ie2a7i1bsim2lbt2c...@4ax.com>,
> > >>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent
> > >>>>>>> "minority government" in power as the last two Canadian elections
> > >>>>>>> show.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Canada's is a parlamentary system, not a system with
> > >>>>>> ranked choice balloting. Those are entirely different
> > >>>>>> things.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> One feature of a ranked choice system is that it tends to
> > >>>>>> disadvantage the extremes on both ends, and advantage those
> > >>>>>> who have more appeal in the center.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> (Extremists may consider this a bug)
> > >>>>> In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
> > >>>>> prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
> > >>>>> members of the party to pull together to support the winner.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> How does that prevent concession speeches?
> > >>>> Presumably there's some ceremony or, at the least, a press conference where the winner is announced
> > >>>> What stops the losing candidates from giving a speech there?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This was a critical problem in a Canadian leadership contest where it
> > >>>>> went 14 ballots with one candidate leading on the first 13 ballots and
> > >>>>> overtaken on the final ballot with the result that he did NOT get the
> > >>>>> opportunity to do 'the concession speech',
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Did he not get the opportunity or did he not take the opportunity?
> > >>>> It's a very different situation
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> then split the party by
> > >>>>> creating a splinter group which cost the party the next general
> > >>>>> election.....
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If he did that then he presumably didn't want to give a concession speech calling on everybody to pull together behind the candidate
> > >>>
> > >>> I /think/ the point is that the voting system leaves #2 believing he
> > >>> could and should and would (with a different voting system) have been
> > >>> #1 and so not interested in conceding.
> > >>>
> > >>> IOW, it blurs the concept of "winner" and so also of "loser".
> > >>>
> > >>> Imagine what Trump could have said if the 2020 election used one of
> > >>> these stylish new voting systems. How many more points at which he
> > >>> could allege fraud.
> > >>
> > >> The voting system wouldn't have increased or decreased that individual's
> > >> efforts to toss the election results out.
> > >
> > > If I understand the spiffy new systems correctly, he could have
> > > alleged that the programs used to compute the winner were corrupt and
> > > biased. With "one voter, one vote for one candidate", he did not have
> > > that line of attack.
> > >
> > > So, yes, his idiocy /could/ have been even worse than it was.
> > He's basically accusing the _current_ system of being corrupt and
> > biased. The details of his accusations might have changed but the scale
> > of his effort would not have.
> > --
> Any system that doesn't elect "me" is unfair and corrupt. It must be changed. Aren't those who are proposing the various ranked ballot systems saying the same thing?

I can't think of any candidate I have voted for in the past twenty years who would have won, or lost, due to ranked ballots. Most of the
time it makes no difference.

But for about a decade the conservative vote in Canada was split between two right-wing parties. I would never vote for either
of them, but it did give the Liberals a huge advantage. With ranked ballots they'd have had to try harder to get their victories.
It may have been the fault of the conservative leadership that such a situation existed, but the average conservative voter
was left without much representation in Parliament. Conservatives were all but shut out of Ontario, a province which
elects a third of Parliament and has a large body of reliably conservative voters.

William Hyde

In article <11dcb29f-f183-4d3e-a65b-0127e32d315dn@googlegroups.com>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:41:11 PM UTC-4, John Halpenny wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 12:03:12 PM UTC-4, Dimensional
>Traveler wrote:
>> > On 6/7/2023 8:04 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 10:21:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> > > <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On 6/6/2023 8:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> > >>> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:06:29 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
>> > >>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 4:23:08?PM UTC+10, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> > >>>>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 02:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
>> > >>>>> <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>> In article <ie2a7i1bsim2lbt2c...@4ax.com>,
>> > >>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>> The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a
>permanent
>> > >>>>>>> "minority government" in power as the last two Canadian elections
>> > >>>>>>> show.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Canada's is a parlamentary system, not a system with
>> > >>>>>> ranked choice balloting. Those are entirely different
>> > >>>>>> things.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> One feature of a ranked choice system is that it tends to
>> > >>>>>> disadvantage the extremes on both ends, and advantage those
>> > >>>>>> who have more appeal in the center.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> (Extremists may consider this a bug)
>> > >>>>> In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
>> > >>>>> prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
>> > >>>>> members of the party to pull together to support the winner.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> How does that prevent concession speeches?
>> > >>>> Presumably there's some ceremony or, at the least, a press
>conference where the winner is announced
>> > >>>> What stops the losing candidates from giving a speech there?
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> This was a critical problem in a Canadian leadership contest
>where it
>> > >>>>> went 14 ballots with one candidate leading on the first 13
>ballots and
>> > >>>>> overtaken on the final ballot with the result that he did NOT
>get the
>> > >>>>> opportunity to do 'the concession speech',
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Did he not get the opportunity or did he not take the opportunity?
>> > >>>> It's a very different situation
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> then split the party by
>> > >>>>> creating a splinter group which cost the party the next general
>> > >>>>> election.....
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> If he did that then he presumably didn't want to give a
>concession speech calling on everybody to pull together behind the
>candidate
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I /think/ the point is that the voting system leaves #2 believing he
>> > >>> could and should and would (with a different voting system) have been
>> > >>> #1 and so not interested in conceding.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> IOW, it blurs the concept of "winner" and so also of "loser".
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Imagine what Trump could have said if the 2020 election used one of
>> > >>> these stylish new voting systems. How many more points at which he
>> > >>> could allege fraud.
>> > >>
>> > >> The voting system wouldn't have increased or decreased that
>individual's
>> > >> efforts to toss the election results out.
>> > >
>> > > If I understand the spiffy new systems correctly, he could have
>> > > alleged that the programs used to compute the winner were corrupt and
>> > > biased. With "one voter, one vote for one candidate", he did not have
>> > > that line of attack.
>> > >
>> > > So, yes, his idiocy /could/ have been even worse than it was.
>> > He's basically accusing the _current_ system of being corrupt and
>> > biased. The details of his accusations might have changed but the scale
>> > of his effort would not have.
>> > --
>> Any system that doesn't elect "me" is unfair and corrupt. It must be
>changed. Aren't those who are proposing the various ranked ballot
>systems saying the same thing?
>
>I can't think of any candidate I have voted for in the past twenty
>years who would have won, or lost, due to ranked ballots. Most of the
>time it makes no difference.
>
>But for about a decade the conservative vote in Canada was split
>between two right-wing parties. I would never vote for either
>of them, but it did give the Liberals a huge advantage. With ranked
>ballots they'd have had to try harder to get their victories.
>It may have been the fault of the conservative leadership that such a
>situation existed, but the average conservative voter
>was left without much representation in Parliament. Conservatives
>were all but shut out of Ontario, a province which
>elects a third of Parliament and has a large body of reliably
>conservative voters.

Thanks to the Bloc popularity in Quebec making Quebec irrelevant at
a federal level, Ontario had a disproportionate effect on who formed
the government.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll