I know this is terribly off topic, but I think that it will be usefulThere is no doubt that Trump conforms to the stereotypical image of the American tourist, as seen by the rest of the world - loud, brash, and flaunting his wealth. For that matter, nouveau riche with more money than sense are well described as minor
to some to be able to reference this particular essay, in the
political discussions that crop up from time to time in this
newsgroup:
https://londondaily.com/british-writer-pens-the-best-description-of-trump-i-ve-read
John Savard
On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 12:15:50 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:characters in David Drake's RCN series - the Rolfe husband and especially wife, Bernice Sand's first husband, and the targets of some cutting observations by Adele Mundy, who was brought up in one of the best families of the capital. I have two
I know this is terribly off topic, but I think that it will be useful
to some to be able to reference this particular essay, in the
political discussions that crop up from time to time in this
newsgroup:
https://londondaily.com/british-writer-pens-the-best-description-of-trump-i-ve-read
John SavardThere is no doubt that Trump conforms to the stereotypical image of the American tourist, as seen by the rest of the world - loud, brash, and flaunting his wealth. For that matter, nouveau riche with more money than sense are well described as minor
1) How much are we to let this inelegance colour our other views on the man? It is a matter of continuing amusement to me how much vitriol from left leaning political opponents of Trump boils down to simple snobbery.
I know this is terribly off topic, but I think that it will be useful totrump-i-ve-read
some to be able to reference this particular essay, in the political discussions that crop up from time to time in this newsgroup:
https://londondaily.com/british-writer-pens-the-best-description-of-
John Savard
On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 12:15:50 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:characters in David Drake's RCN series - the Rolfe husband and especially wife, Bernice Sand's first husband, and the targets of some cutting observations by Adele Mundy, who was brought up in one of the best families of the capital. I have two
I know this is terribly off topic, but I think that it will be useful
to some to be able to reference this particular essay, in the
political discussions that crop up from time to time in this
newsgroup:
https://londondaily.com/british-writer-pens-the-best-description-of-trump-i-ve-read
John SavardThere is no doubt that Trump conforms to the stereotypical image of the American tourist, as seen by the rest of the world - loud, brash, and flaunting his wealth. For that matter, nouveau riche with more money than sense are well described as minor
1) How much are we to let this inelegance colour our other views on the man? It is a matter of continuing amusement to me how much vitriol from left leaning political opponents of Trump boils down to simple snobbery. I do not find this a convincingform of political argument (but then, one of the most impressive technical talks I ever heard was delivered by somebody with an American accent straight out of a Western).
2) I grew up in N.Ireland and Ireland (North or South) is one of the few places in the world where the way for an American Tourist to ensure themselves of a warm welcome is to stand out as an obvious American Tourist. I did actually know an American -many years ago now - who bore a noticeable resemblence to Higgins, as portrayed in the original series of Magnum PI. He spent some time touring Ireland, and told me a little about it, because he knew I was from N. Ireland. He told me that he had a cold
I know this is terribly off topic, but I think that it will be useful
to some to be able to reference this particular essay, in the
political discussions that crop up from time to time in this
newsgroup:
https://londondaily.com/british-writer-pens-the-best-description-of-trump-i-ve-read
John Savard
On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 3:39:41 AM UTC+10, Andrew McDowell wrote:characters in David Drake's RCN series - the Rolfe husband and especially wife, Bernice Sand's first husband, and the targets of some cutting observations by Adele Mundy, who was brought up in one of the best families of the capital. I have two
On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 12:15:50 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
I know this is terribly off topic, but I think that it will be useful
to some to be able to reference this particular essay, in the
political discussions that crop up from time to time in this
newsgroup:
https://londondaily.com/british-writer-pens-the-best-description-of-trump-i-ve-read
John SavardThere is no doubt that Trump conforms to the stereotypical image of the American tourist, as seen by the rest of the world - loud, brash, and flaunting his wealth. For that matter, nouveau riche with more money than sense are well described as minor
form of political argument (but then, one of the most impressive technical talks I ever heard was delivered by somebody with an American accent straight out of a Western).1) How much are we to let this inelegance colour our other views on the man? It is a matter of continuing amusement to me how much vitriol from left leaning political opponents of Trump boils down to simple snobbery. I do not find this a convincing
Anybody who thinks that the criticism of Trump boils down to snobbery rather than observing his actual history and policies is either lying their arses off or brain dead.of his business ventures and their is huge amounts of evidence that he's based much of his success on fraud
Trump's a racist, sexist, serial groper and likely rapist who was repeatedly bailed out of business disaster by his father, cheated family members out of their legitimate inheritance cheated students who enrolled in Trump University, has failed in most
Trump was the host of "The Apprentice."
"The Apprentice" was produced by a Brit, Mark Burnett.
Therefore the British are implicated in the creation of the
Trump phenomenon.
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).
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 2:31:11 AM UTC-5, Hamish Laws wrote:minor characters in David Drake's RCN series - the Rolfe husband and especially wife, Bernice Sand's first husband, and the targets of some cutting observations by Adele Mundy, who was brought up in one of the best families of the capital. I have two
On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 3:39:41 AM UTC+10, Andrew McDowell wrote:
On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 12:15:50 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
I know this is terribly off topic, but I think that it will be useful to some to be able to reference this particular essay, in the political discussions that crop up from time to time in this newsgroup:
https://londondaily.com/british-writer-pens-the-best-description-of-trump-i-ve-read
John SavardThere is no doubt that Trump conforms to the stereotypical image of the American tourist, as seen by the rest of the world - loud, brash, and flaunting his wealth. For that matter, nouveau riche with more money than sense are well described as
form of political argument (but then, one of the most impressive technical talks I ever heard was delivered by somebody with an American accent straight out of a Western).1) How much are we to let this inelegance colour our other views on the man? It is a matter of continuing amusement to me how much vitriol from left leaning political opponents of Trump boils down to simple snobbery. I do not find this a convincing
most of his business ventures and their is huge amounts of evidence that he's based much of his success on fraudAnybody who thinks that the criticism of Trump boils down to snobbery rather than observing his actual history and policies is either lying their arses off or brain dead.
Trump's a racist, sexist, serial groper and likely rapist who was repeatedly bailed out of business disaster by his father, cheated family members out of their legitimate inheritance cheated students who enrolled in Trump University, has failed in
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).
I know this is terribly off topic, but I think that it will be useful
to some to be able to reference this particular essay, in the
political discussions that crop up from time to time in this
newsgroup:
https://londondaily.com/british-writer-pens-the-best-description-of-trump-i-ve-read
John Savard
On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 3:29:18 AM UTC+10, Johnny1A wrote:characters in David Drake's RCN series - the Rolfe husband and especially wife, Bernice Sand's first husband, and the targets of some cutting observations by Adele Mundy, who was brought up in one of the best families of the capital. I have two
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 2:31:11 AM UTC-5, Hamish Laws wrote:
On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 3:39:41 AM UTC+10, Andrew McDowell wrote:
On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 12:15:50 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
I know this is terribly off topic, but I think that it will be useful >>>>> to some to be able to reference this particular essay, in theThere is no doubt that Trump conforms to the stereotypical image of the American tourist, as seen by the rest of the world - loud, brash, and flaunting his wealth. For that matter, nouveau riche with more money than sense are well described as minor
political discussions that crop up from time to time in this
newsgroup:
https://londondaily.com/british-writer-pens-the-best-description-of-trump-i-ve-read
John Savard
form of political argument (but then, one of the most impressive technical talks I ever heard was delivered by somebody with an American accent straight out of a Western).
1) How much are we to let this inelegance colour our other views on the man? It is a matter of continuing amusement to me how much vitriol from left leaning political opponents of Trump boils down to simple snobbery. I do not find this a convincing
most of his business ventures and their is huge amounts of evidence that he's based much of his success on fraudAnybody who thinks that the criticism of Trump boils down to snobbery rather than observing his actual history and policies is either lying their arses off or brain dead.
Trump's a racist, sexist, serial groper and likely rapist who was repeatedly bailed out of business disaster by his father, cheated family members out of their legitimate inheritance cheated students who enrolled in Trump University, has failed in
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).
Well there is the fact that the CFO pled guilty to 15 charges including grand larceny, tax fraud and falsifying business records
some coverage of the trial shows that Trump signed off on at least some of the fiddling
https://apnews.com/article/business-new-york-manhattan-donald-trump-government-and-politics-af8c8d828e224dcde9b39ae17cbb3a4c
The New York Attorney's office is proceeding to trial with a civil suit https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62986812
We've got Trump's quote that he changes valuations depending on how he feels in a deposition from a court case in 2007
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2011/04/donald_trump_net_worth_is_dete.html We've got Trump saying that banks shouldn't trust his valuations https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-tax-returns-bank-fraud-lawsuit-b2172660.html
Trump's settlement of the fraudulent Trump University claims
...
The trumps charity paid costs for Trump not related to the charity (including a settlement over a flagpole, a dispute over a hole in one prize at one of Trump's golf courses, ads promoting Trump hotels)
They illegally used the charity to push his political career
and here's an look at his fundraising after the election loss https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/02/donald-trump-fundraising-schemes-campaign-finance-scrutiny-criticism
Not to mention holding Trump political events at Trump properties so his businesses get paid money from donations to his campaigns...
On 23/05/23 12:48, Hamish Laws wrote:minor characters in David Drake's RCN series - the Rolfe husband and especially wife, Bernice Sand's first husband, and the targets of some cutting observations by Adele Mundy, who was brought up in one of the best families of the capital. I have two
On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 3:29:18?AM UTC+10, Johnny1A wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 2:31:11?AM UTC-5, Hamish Laws wrote:
On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 3:39:41?AM UTC+10, Andrew McDowell wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 12:15:50?PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
I know this is terribly off topic, but I think that it will be useful >>>>>> to some to be able to reference this particular essay, in theThere is no doubt that Trump conforms to the stereotypical image of the American tourist, as seen by the rest of the world - loud, brash, and flaunting his wealth. For that matter, nouveau riche with more money than sense are well described as
political discussions that crop up from time to time in this
newsgroup:
https://londondaily.com/british-writer-pens-the-best-description-of-trump-i-ve-read
John Savard
form of political argument (but then, one of the most impressive technical talks I ever heard was delivered by somebody with an American accent straight out of a Western).
1) How much are we to let this inelegance colour our other views on the man? It is a matter of continuing amusement to me how much vitriol from left leaning political opponents of Trump boils down to simple snobbery. I do not find this a convincing
most of his business ventures and their is huge amounts of evidence that he's based much of his success on fraudAnybody who thinks that the criticism of Trump boils down to snobbery rather than observing his actual history and policies is either lying their arses off or brain dead.
Trump's a racist, sexist, serial groper and likely rapist who was repeatedly bailed out of business disaster by his father, cheated family members out of their legitimate inheritance cheated students who enrolled in Trump University, has failed in
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).
Well there is the fact that the CFO pled guilty to 15 charges including grand larceny, tax fraud and falsifying business records
some coverage of the trial shows that Trump signed off on at least some of the fiddling
https://apnews.com/article/business-new-york-manhattan-donald-trump-government-and-politics-af8c8d828e224dcde9b39ae17cbb3a4c
The New York Attorney's office is proceeding to trial with a civil suit
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62986812
We've got Trump's quote that he changes valuations depending on how he feels in a deposition from a court case in 2007
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2011/04/donald_trump_net_worth_is_dete.html >> We've got Trump saying that banks shouldn't trust his valuations
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-tax-returns-bank-fraud-lawsuit-b2172660.html
Trump's settlement of the fraudulent Trump University claims
...
The trumps charity paid costs for Trump not related to the charity (including a settlement over a flagpole, a dispute over a hole in one prize at one of Trump's golf courses, ads promoting Trump hotels)
They illegally used the charity to push his political career
and here's an look at his fundraising after the election loss
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/02/donald-trump-fundraising-schemes-campaign-finance-scrutiny-criticism
Not to mention holding Trump political events at Trump properties so his businesses get paid money from donations to his campaigns...
To summarise the above it would appear that although not personable, he
is a very cunning man clever enough to employ professional advisors and
to outwit multi-million dollar institutions with a conviction that the
ends justify the means, that his value to his public far outweighs any >consideration that he should be subject to law.
What a great choice to be the figurehead of an evil empire!
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.
That's one reason why they should be believed, for starters.
On Sat, 20 May 2023 04:15:47 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
I know this is terribly off topic, but I think that it will be useful to
some to be able to reference this particular essay, in the political
discussions that crop up from time to time in this newsgroup:
https://londondaily.com/british-writer-pens-the-best-description-of- >trump-i-ve-read
John Savard
Trump was the host of "The Apprentice."
"The Apprentice" was produced by a Brit, Mark Burnett.
Therefore the British are implicated in the creation of the
Trump phenomenon.
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 2:31:11 AM UTC-5, Hamish Laws wrote:
Anybody who thinks that the criticism of Trump boils down to snobbery >rather than observing his actual history and policies is either lyingtheir arses off or brain dead.
Trump's a racist, sexist, serial groper and likely rapist who was >repeatedly bailed out of business disaster by his father, cheatedfamily members out of their legitimate inheritance cheated students who >enrolled in Trump University, has failed in most of his business
ventures and their is huge amounts of evidence that he's based much of
his success on fraud
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).
In article <748cdd94-a480-44b8...@googlegroups.com>,
Johnny1A <johnny1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 2:31:11 AM UTC-5, Hamish Laws wrote:
Anybody who thinks that the criticism of Trump boils down to snobbery >rather than observing his actual history and policies is either lying >their arses off or brain dead.family members out of their legitimate inheritance cheated students who >enrolled in Trump University, has failed in most of his business
Trump's a racist, sexist, serial groper and likely rapist who was >repeatedly bailed out of business disaster by his father, cheated
ventures and their is huge amounts of evidence that he's based much of
his success on fraud
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).I don't like Trump. I've never liked Trump, since the day
the man first impinged on my awareness back in the 1980s.
(Oddly enough, the factors that got Trump elected in 2016
were very much like the factors that got Obama elected in
2008: People are **SICK** of "Politics as Usual", and
are looking for someone who, hopefully, will care about
America beyond the DC Beltway.)
Anyway, I've never voted for the SOB.
However -- the Left has flung so much fake crap about Trump
since he got into politics
that it causes me to doubt the reality of the real crap.
All during the primaries, the Monotone Media was all in for
Hillary.
Given her rather massive negatives, they looked at
the whole slate of GOP candidates for the one most unelectable.
Trump, obviously. So they greased the skids for him. NBC
News sat on that "Grab the Cat" video through the whole primary
season so ("Please let it be Trump. Please *please* let it be
Trump!") they could trot it out as an October Surprise.
It wasn't enough.
I will not be voting for Trump in the primaries. I dearly hope
(now that I live in a potentially swing state, not the Peoples
Democratic One-Party State of California, where my vote had no
relevance whatsoever) that I am not forced into it by needing
to vote against the senile dolt (who was never the sharpest
bowling ball in the gunny sack back before dementia eroded
his limited supply of marbles) who's likely to blunder us
into nuclear Armageddon.
I will not be voting for Trump in the primaries. I dearly hope
(now that I live in a potentially swing state, not the Peoples
Democratic One-Party State of California, where my vote had no
relevance whatsoever) that I am not forced into it by needing
to vote against the senile dolt (who was never the sharpest
bowling ball in the gunny sack back before dementia eroded
his limited supply of marbles) who's likely to blunder us
into nuclear Armageddon.
Among the thingsMike Van Pelt wrote:
I will not be voting for Trump in the primaries. I dearly hope
(now that I live in a potentially swing state, not the Peoples
Democratic One-Party State of California, where my vote had no
relevance whatsoever) that I am not forced into it by needing
to vote against the senile dolt (who was never the sharpest
bowling ball in the gunny sack back before dementia eroded
his limited supply of marbles) who's likely to blunder us
into nuclear Armageddon.
With the last election cycle, and the way the next one has been looking to shape up since then, I'm surprised the third parties have not tried to gain traction in offering a different choice.
I know this is terribly off topic,
to some to be able to reference this particular essay,
political discussions that crop up from time to time in this
newsgroup:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 2:31:11 AM UTC-5, Hamish Laws wrote:characters in David Drake's RCN series - the Rolfe husband and especially wife, Bernice Sand's first husband, and the targets of some cutting observations by Adele Mundy, who was brought up in one of the best families of the capital. I have two
On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 3:39:41 AM UTC+10, Andrew McDowell wrote:
On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 12:15:50 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
I know this is terribly off topic, but I think that it will be usefulThere is no doubt that Trump conforms to the stereotypical image of the American tourist, as seen by the rest of the world - loud, brash, and flaunting his wealth. For that matter, nouveau riche with more money than sense are well described as minor
to some to be able to reference this particular essay, in the
political discussions that crop up from time to time in this
newsgroup:
https://londondaily.com/british-writer-pens-the-best-description-of-trump-i-ve-read
John Savard
form of political argument (but then, one of the most impressive technical talks I ever heard was delivered by somebody with an American accent straight out of a Western).
1) How much are we to let this inelegance colour our other views on the man? It is a matter of continuing amusement to me how much vitriol from left leaning political opponents of Trump boils down to simple snobbery. I do not find this a convincing
most of his business ventures and their is huge amounts of evidence that he's based much of his success on fraudAnybody who thinks that the criticism of Trump boils down to snobbery rather than observing his actual history and policies is either lying their arses off or brain dead.
Trump's a racist, sexist, serial groper and likely rapist who was repeatedly bailed out of business disaster by his father, cheated family members out of their legitimate inheritance cheated students who enrolled in Trump University, has failed in
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).
You think Biden's senile but you're fine with Trump?
Do you consume any media other than Fox?
With the last election cycle, and the way the next one has been looking
to shape up since then, I'm surprised the third parties have not tried
to gain traction in offering a different choice.
On Mon, 29 May 2023 19:05:51 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <814af1ca-abe9-4704...@googlegroups.com>,
Jack Bohn <jack....@gmail.com> wrote:
With the last election cycle, and the way the next one has been looking >>to shape up since then, I'm surprised the third parties have not tried >>to gain traction in offering a different choice.
Too much "plurality take all" in the way we do elections.The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent "minority government"
Vote for Ross Perot, it's a vote for Bill Clinton. Vote for
Ralph Nader, it's a vote for George W. Bush. I would *LOVE*
some sort of ranked-choice voting, like what the Hugos do, or
Condorcet, or some such. I haven't been happy with any of the
choices presented to me in ... a long time. I've usually ended
up voting Libertarian as an "A Plague On Both Your Parties"
vote, when I was voting in a certain one-party state, but
I've moved from there, and my vote might actually have some
relevance now.
show.
Canada isn't a ranked ballot country
In article <814af1ca-abe9-4704-83c0-0b36d7886143n@googlegroups.com>,
Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
With the last election cycle, and the way the next one has been looking
to shape up since then, I'm surprised the third parties have not tried
to gain traction in offering a different choice.
Too much "plurality take all" in the way we do elections.
Vote for Ross Perot, it's a vote for Bill Clinton. Vote for
Ralph Nader, it's a vote for George W. Bush. I would *LOVE*
some sort of ranked-choice voting, like what the Hugos do, or
Condorcet, or some such. I haven't been happy with any of the
choices presented to me in ... a long time. I've usually ended
up voting Libertarian as an "A Plague On Both Your Parties"
vote, when I was voting in a certain one-party state, but
I've moved from there, and my vote might actually have some
relevance now.
The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent
"minority government" in power as the last two Canadian elections
show.
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.
On Mon, 29 May 2023 19:05:51 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <814af1ca-abe9-4704...@googlegroups.com>,
Jack Bohn <jack....@gmail.com> wrote:
With the last election cycle, and the way the next one has been looking >>to shape up since then, I'm surprised the third parties have not tried >>to gain traction in offering a different choice.
Too much "plurality take all" in the way we do elections.The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent "minority government" in power as the last two Canadian elections
Vote for Ross Perot, it's a vote for Bill Clinton. Vote for
Ralph Nader, it's a vote for George W. Bush. I would *LOVE*
some sort of ranked-choice voting, like what the Hugos do, or
Condorcet, or some such. I haven't been happy with any of the
choices presented to me in ... a long time. I've usually ended
up voting Libertarian as an "A Plague On Both Your Parties"
vote, when I was voting in a certain one-party state, but
I've moved from there, and my vote might actually have some
relevance now.
show.
In article <ie2a7i1bsim2lbt2c...@4ax.com>,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
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 electionsCanada's is a parlamentary system, not a system with
show.
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)
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
On Thu, 25 May 2023 05:19:30 -0700 (PDT), Jack Bohn
<jack....@gmail.com> wrote:
With the last election cycle, and the way the next one has been looking to shape upIt's hard to do, and expensive.
since then, I'm surprised the third parties have not tried to gain traction in offering a different choice.
And they get attacked from /both/ sides -- those who oppose their
positions, and those who accuse them of splitting the field and so
ensuring the victory of the enemy.
--
On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 4:36:38 PM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:
The trouble with ranked ballots is that you end up with a permanent "minority government"
Evidence for this claim is lacking.
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.
In article <ad2662f7-3a84-4167...@googlegroups.com>,
Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@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 oneHeh. That may be. If I were voting ranked choice,
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.
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.)
On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 12:19:22 PM UTC-4, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <ad2662f7-3a84-4167...@googlegroups.com>,
Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:
A claim on ranked choice voting that I found amusing - one way that itHeh. That may be. If I were voting ranked choice,
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.
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.)
If you can abide another Canadian example:
The strong liberal majority of 2015 came in part because voters
otherwise loyal to the
NDP (mildly socialist) voted Liberal as their top priority was to
defeat the conservatives.
Even safe NDP seats went liberal. With ranked ballots left wing voters
could have
selected (1) NDP (2) Liberal (3) Green, or something of the kind
without fearing that a
conservative might get the seat due to vote splitting.
I like the idea of not having to vote for your second choice, in order
to keep the third
choice out.
In article<748cdd94-a480-44b8-a91b-609808da9005n@googlegroups.com>, Johnny1A<johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 2:31:11 AM UTC-5, Hamish Laws wrote:I don't like Trump. I've never liked Trump, since the day
Anybody who thinks that the criticism of Trump boils down to snobberyrather than observing his actual history and policies is either lying
their arses off or brain dead.
Trump's a racist, sexist, serial groper and likely rapist who wasrepeatedly bailed out of business disaster by his father, cheated
family members out of their legitimate inheritance cheated students who
enrolled in Trump University, has failed in most of his business
ventures and their is huge amounts of evidence that he's based much of
his success on fraud
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 man first impinged on my awareness back in the 1980s.
(Oddly enough, the factors that got Trump elected in 2016
were very much like the factors that got Obama elected in
2008: People are **SICK** of "Politics as Usual", and
are looking for someone who, hopefully, will care about
America beyond the DC Beltway.)
Anyway, I've never voted for the SOB.
However -- the Left has flung so much fake crap about Trump
since he got into politics that it causes me to doubt the
reality of the real crap.
I like the idea of not having to vote for your second choice, in order to keep the third
choice out.
However -- the Left has flung so much fake crap about Trump
since he got into politics that it causes me to doubt the
reality of the real crap.
What "fake crap" would you be referring to?
In article <u57uu8$2elkt$5@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
However -- the Left has flung so much fake crap about Trump
since he got into politics that it causes me to doubt the
reality of the real crap.
What "fake crap" would you be referring to?
Starting with the Steele Dossier.
On 2023-05-31 22:18, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <u57uu8$2elkt$5@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >>>> However -- the Left has flung so much fake crap about Trump
since he got into politics that it causes me to doubt the
reality of the real crap.
What "fake crap" would you be referring to?
Starting with the Steele Dossier.
Sorry, but that's what the MAGA narrative would like you to believe.
There are elements of that dossier that are unproven...
...but that doesn't make the entire thing false.
In article <u599rj$2mthl$2@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-05-31 22:18, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <u57uu8$2elkt$5@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >>>>> However -- the Left has flung so much fake crap about Trump
since he got into politics that it causes me to doubt the
reality of the real crap.
What "fake crap" would you be referring to?
Starting with the Steele Dossier.
Sorry, but that's what the MAGA narrative would like you to believe.
There are elements of that dossier that are unproven...
...but that doesn't make the entire thing false.
"Unproven" here being a euphemism for "no actual evidence
whatsoever outside of lurid assertions from a Russian
operative paid for by the Clinton campaign."
And continuing with "Trump says injecting bleach will cure
COVID", and "Trump says that some of the Nazis and KKK are
very fine people."
I listened to the full quotes. People who say that are lying,
flat out, or are just repeating lies not caring if they are
true or not, because they will believe without question any
negative thing anyone says about Orange Man Bad.
And, again, I do not like the man, I never voted for him,
and I hope to never be in a situation where my vote matters
and he is the lesser evil. (I keep threatening to write in
Cthulhu, just to not be voting for the lesser evil.)
On 2023-05-31 22:56, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <u599rj$2mthl$2...@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-05-31 22:18, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <u57uu8$2elkt$5...@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
However -- the Left has flung so much fake crap about Trump
since he got into politics that it causes me to doubt the
reality of the real crap.
What "fake crap" would you be referring to?
Starting with the Steele Dossier.
Sorry, but that's what the MAGA narrative would like you to believe.
There are elements of that dossier that are unproven...
...but that doesn't make the entire thing false.
"Unproven" here being a euphemism for "no actual evidenceNope.
whatsoever outside of lurid assertions from a Russian
operative paid for by the Clinton campaign."
Sorry.
And continuing with "Trump says injecting bleach will cureWhich he did... ...and he did.
COVID", and "Trump says that some of the Nazis and KKK are
very fine people."
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 3:06:58?AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-05-31 22:56, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <u599rj$2mthl$2...@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:Nope.
On 2023-05-31 22:18, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <u57uu8$2elkt$5...@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
However -- the Left has flung so much fake crap about Trump
since he got into politics that it causes me to doubt the
reality of the real crap.
What "fake crap" would you be referring to?
Starting with the Steele Dossier.
Sorry, but that's what the MAGA narrative would like you to believe.
There are elements of that dossier that are unproven...
...but that doesn't make the entire thing false.
"Unproven" here being a euphemism for "no actual evidence
whatsoever outside of lurid assertions from a Russian
operative paid for by the Clinton campaign."
Sorry.
Which he did... ...and he did.
And continuing with "Trump says injecting bleach will cure
COVID", and "Trump says that some of the Nazis and KKK are
very fine people."
We're on the internet. Check for yourself:
https://youtu.be/d57zJr82dhQ
it starts 24 seconds in.
He's actually wondering if it *could* be done. Of course, this displays
a massive ignorance of science, biology, and chemistry. ...but thats
no suprise with this bloated tick of a man.
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.
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 3:06:58 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-05-31 22:56, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <u599rj$2mthl$2...@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote: >>>> On 2023-05-31 22:18, Mike Van Pelt wrote:Nope.
In article <u57uu8$2elkt$5...@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
However -- the Left has flung so much fake crap about Trump
since he got into politics that it causes me to doubt the
reality of the real crap.
What "fake crap" would you be referring to?
Starting with the Steele Dossier.
Sorry, but that's what the MAGA narrative would like you to believe.
There are elements of that dossier that are unproven...
...but that doesn't make the entire thing false.
"Unproven" here being a euphemism for "no actual evidence
whatsoever outside of lurid assertions from a Russian
operative paid for by the Clinton campaign."
Sorry.
Which he did... ...and he did.
And continuing with "Trump says injecting bleach will cure
COVID", and "Trump says that some of the Nazis and KKK are
very fine people."
We're on the internet. Check for yourself:
https://youtu.be/d57zJr82dhQ
it starts 24 seconds in.
He's actually wondering if it *could* be done. Of course, this displays
a massive ignorance of science, biology, and chemistry. ...but thats
no suprise with this bloated tick of a man.
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.
On 2023-06-01 06:59, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
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,Split that hair if you like.
not asserting it was a cure.
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]
https://timjwise.medium.com/im-just-asking-questions-is-the-rhetoric-of-assholes-and-grifters-5cd0825daacI 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,Split that hair if you like.
not asserting it was a cure.
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 behindSplit that hair if you like.
bars. But we should be honest: He was asking a stupid question,
not asserting it was a cure.
https://timjwise.medium.com/im-just-asking-questions-is-the-rhetoric-of-assholes-and-grifters-5cd0825daac
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,Split that hair if you like.
not asserting it was a cure.
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.
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 showThe so-called "left-wing media" is also called the "mainstream media"
why they should be believed).
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.
That's one reason why they should be believed, for starters.
John Savard
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.)
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 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.
Since the claim of 'unbiased and accurate' is factually false, it does not provide a reason to put faith in them.
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>,In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
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)
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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>,In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
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)
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>,In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
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)
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.
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.
How does that prevent concession speeches?(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.
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 itDid he not get the opportunity or did he not take the opportunity?
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',
It's a very different situation
then split the party byIf he did that then he presumably didn't want to give a concession speech calling on everybody to pull together behind the candidate
creating a splinter group which cost the party the next general election.....
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>,In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
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)
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.
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>,In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
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)
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.
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>,In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to >>>>> prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
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)
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.
--
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>,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.
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)
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?
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>,In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to >>>> prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
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)
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.
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>,In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to >>>>>> prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
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)
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.
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>,In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to >>>>>>> prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
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)
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.
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>,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.
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)
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.
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?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.
--
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, DimensionalTraveler wrote:
where itOn 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>,In a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to >> > >>>>> prevent concession speeches where the #2 candidate calls on all
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)
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
ballots andwent 14 ballots with one candidate leading on the first 13
get theovertaken on the final ballot with the result that he did NOT
concession speech calling on everybody to pull together behind theopportunity 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
candidate
systems saying the same thing?Any system that doesn't elect "me" is unfair and corrupt. It must be >changed. Aren't those who are proposing the various ranked ballotHe's basically accusing the _current_ system of being corrupt and
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.
biased. The details of his accusations might have changed but the scale
of his effort would not have.
--
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.
Of course not! It's a political convention. :POne feature of a ranked choice system is that it tends toIn a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
disadvantage the extremes on both ends, and advantage those
who have more appeal in the center.
(Extremists may consider this a bug)
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.
On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 16:06:53 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
The primary idea of a party convention is to choose a candidate whoOf course not! It's a political convention. :POne feature of a ranked choice system is that it tends toIn a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
disadvantage the extremes on both ends, and advantage those
who have more appeal in the center.
(Extremists may consider this a bug)
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.
the delegates figure CAN WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION.
How is this all that different between Canada and the US?
Surely the idea is not to pick somebody ideological pure who has no
hope in hell of "winning in November"?
On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 16:06:53 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
The primary idea of a party convention is to choose a candidate whoOf course not! It's a political convention. :POne feature of a ranked choice system is that it tends toIn a party 'convention' ranked ballots are also bad as they tend to
disadvantage the extremes on both ends, and advantage those
who have more appeal in the center.
(Extremists may consider this a bug)
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.
the delegates figure CAN WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION.
How is this all that different between Canada and the US?
Surely the idea is not to pick somebody ideological pure who has no
hope in hell of "winning in November"?
I've voted for all kinds of candidates through the years that I--
thought were the best person for the job who enough of my fellow
citizens disappointed me by preferring somebody else - probably so
have most of you.
The primary idea of a party convention is to choose a candidate who
the delegates figure CAN WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION.
How is this all that different between Canada and the US?
On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 3:49:36 PM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:
The primary idea of a party convention is to choose a candidate who
the delegates figure CAN WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION.
How is this all that different between Canada and the US?
Open primaries.
What we do in Canada is _illegal_ in the United States, they refer to
it as "machine politics". So instead of sensible people who have been
working for the party deciding who its candidate should be, in order to
win the election - it's decided by anyone who walks into the polling
place and declaring himself or herself a supporter of that party.
So parties do not pick their Presidential candidates rationally in the
United States. Their most fervent supporters, instead, vote for their
dreams and wishes and hopes.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 82:11:17 |
| Calls: | 6,762 |
| Files: | 12,289 |
| Messages: | 5,378,197 |