Re: David Owen

<cgcenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1137929610.639463.269810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Adam Gray wrote:
>> <cgcenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1137880041.155651.150110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > Political establishments can as easily stictch up FPTP elections as PR
>> > ones. Look at Zimbabwe.
>>
>> You must really be getting desperate if you're resorting to Zimbabwe to
>> evidence your case...
>
> It's an example of political corruption, caused by a one-party system,
> under FPTP.

It's not a one-party system unless I've imagined Morgan Chandarai, but the
corruption is caused by corrupt polticians rigging the vote - something they
would do under a PR system. We're not getting any further forward here.

> I know that's inconvenient for you, which is why you want
> to dismiss it, but you can't. It's there. You have to deal with it.

It's not inconvenient to me at all - it's a ludicrous example used by you in
desperation to shore up a weak argument. It's still a ludicrous example.


>> > Er, how does the possibility of a result in which a party gets an
>> > overall majority on the second-largest share of the vote imply that the
>> > power is "in the hands of the voters"
>>
>> Because it's not in the hands of the politicians.
> It is if it were gerrymandered to be so. And even if it weren't, then
> it certainly isn't the result the people wanted.
>
>> Obviously. And as this
>> scenario is (pretty weak) hypothesising at best, it's really not worth
>> pursuing, is it?
>
> It's certainbly worth pursuing, not least because it has happened
> several times in various FPTP systems.

it's not worth pursuing because I can say "Italy would never have ended up
with the second most popular party winning power" and you can no more
disprove that assertion than I can disprove yours that it would. Hence,
it's irrelevent. Hence, unless you can root yourself in some vague concept
of reality (something I appreciate PR fanatics struggle with - but make an
effort, for me) this isn't worth pursuing.

>> > Gerrymandering, by definition, is only possible in district-based
>> > systems, and it has its strongest effects in single-member districts.
>>
>> As very few PR nutt...umm...supporters support non-district based
>> systems,
>> your point doesn't really advance this aspect of your argument either.
>
> Only if you disregard the second part of my sentence:
> % and it has its strongest effects in single-member districts

I don't believe I disregarded the second part of your sentence, but I did
dismiss it on the basis that it's nonsense.

> You are doing your usual trick, of pretending that if one does not like
> X because factor Y seems to be a serious problem, then the only
> reasonable thing to support is something in which factor Y is never
> possible. This shows a complete lack of understanding of risk analysis.

I thought we were debating electoral systems, not risk analysis? Again, you
expose the fundamental failing of PR fanatics - you either end up basing
your arguments on absurd hypotheses that are works of pure fiction, or you
simply apply methods utterly irrelevant to the discussion. Neither helps
you.

> As you know perfectly well, many supporters of PR can support
> multi-member district systems because although gerrymandering may be
> theoretically possible under such systems, it is much more difficult
> and nowhere near as effective. This is particularly true under STV. One
> of the reasons STV was introduced in local elections in Northern
> Ireland was to stop gerrymandering.

That's one spin. The actual reason was not gerrymandering but polarisation
of support.

>> > Only in marginal seats. In safe seats, there's no power for the voters
>> > at all.
>>
>> Rubbish - more myth making by the PR lobby...the reason safe seats are
>> safe
>> seats is because a big majority of the residents of said seats support
>> one
>> party or another. Every voter has equal power - and it's simply
>> dishonest
>> to claim otherwise.
>
> It doesn't matter why they are safe.

There's only one reason why seats are safe, and I happen to think it's quite
important: it's because a majority - often a big majority - of voterss in
that area want to be represented by the party who wins.

> If, for whatever reason, there is
> little realistic chance of a particular candidate being removed from
> office, then there is no real contest where that particular candidate
> is concerned, and a much greater chance for corruption.

And that scenario happens in multi-member constituencies under assorted PR
systems. It even makes it more likely. I'm not going to go through this
argument again: it was discussed a few months ago.

Adam



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Wintard Preoccupation with Price and Marketshare
    ... "You provided support when Macs were used as the ... is no reason to think even you believe your claims. ... You have claimed to disagree that similarly configured Macs ... When I talked about teaching "on OS X" you insisted I ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: interesting
    ... Clifford Heath wrote: ... The reason that EE is being hit so ... > When you haven't got a support industry, ... wrt the non-repairability of electronics, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: David Owen
    ... that MP's majority -- it drops at every election. ... We can clearly see the analogy with seats and votes, ... match there is no technical reason ...
    (uk.politics.electoral)
  • Re: Can the government fix what it has created?
    ... without justifiable cause or reason. ... that adults should support themselves and in most cases that means ... There is also an expectation that society will maintain ... the poverty trap in as much as you cannot lose CI or CW. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Ode to Scottie Witlessmongrel
    ... oppose SSM, after being asked the reason several times. ...  refusing gives you license to speculation IYO. ... reason for your support of SSM. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)