Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

I need you all to be honest with me: Is Bay 12 a Super Secret Gay Recruiting Center?

No, I think it's just somewhere that homosexuals feel like they can be themselves, safely, because the board moderator brooks none of the shit they might catch elsewhere on the internet.

Is there a more politically correct term that I'm forgetting?

I think homosexual is more PC than calling them "the gays."

[RedKing]

Gay. He meant gay.

We do have a remarkably high number of gays here don't we?

Is there a more politically correct term that I'm forgetting?

Meh, I think there's more bi than strictly gay. Point being that a significant chunk of the prominent forumites wouldn't being averse to snogging.

[scriver]

Whether gay or bi, they're certainly the most loudly flirting demographic on the forum, though.
...Not that I mind, of course.

_{...I just wish sometime they'd hit on me as well... D':}


 

[Owlbread]

Gay. He meant gay.

We do have a remarkably high number of gays here don't we?

Is there a more politically correct term that I'm forgetting?

Heemasex.

On the subject of multiple political parties, in Scotland we have 4-5 major ones, with two influential but minor hangers on. To understand what our political system can do, imagine if the green party in Canada suddenly gained the very first full majority government that Canada has ever had (regardless of whether they've had them in real life). That's what the SNP did last year.

[Zrk2]

That would be crazy.

[RedKing]

SNP is a cool guy, he pisses off Sassenachs and doesn't afraid of McAnything.

[GlyphGryph]

On Proportional Representation - Fuck no. Just... no. Fuck that shit. I enjoy voting for people, and campaigning for people, and even getting them elected, and that is completely impossible under a proportional system.

So sorry, but no, I've no interest in switching to a "let the party bosses pick my representative for me" system, thank you. We have more than enough rule-by-the-elites without handing them complete control over our political representation. I would like a say in the matter, however small.

This may be partially because I come from a smaller state with a history of electing independents and people from the "opposing" party because the popular state party is full of asshats and idiots. It's like all the idiocy of of party-line voting enshrined into law.

[Descan]

Wait...

I thought "proportional representation" meant that if your party gets 20% of the vote for, say, Congress, your party gets 20% of Congress?

I mean, yeah, in Canada, you vote for the party, not the person, and the party with the most votes (whether below 50% or not) puts in a guy they choose.

But usually you know who they're going to choose... I don't think it's -illegal- for them to do a bait-and-switch, but it's certainly bad form and I think it'd ruin their chances in the future, so they don't do it.

Then again, we elected Harper to a majority government, so we're basically pants-on-head retarded. He's basically the Canadian G. W. Bush.

[scriver]

@GlyphGryph -
You can still do that if it's and Open List Proportional Representations system, though. Then you vote in the people you want in charge as well.

[palsch]

On Proportional Representation - Fuck no. Just... no. Fuck that shit. I enjoy voting for people, and campaigning for people, and even getting them elected, and that is completely impossible under a proportional system.

Single transferable vote. It's the preferred system of many (most?) voting reform groups.

[Reelya]

I thik glyphGryph has the wrong idea about how proportional voting works. In every area i've encountered you still vote for candidates, not parties.

In the Australian senate elections, if your candidate gets excess votes, then the "spare" votes get distributed to 2nd prerefences, so it's a combination of proportional and IRV voting.

FPTP gives 2 party dominance with no minor party choices at all. Proportional gives a multitude of voices.

[Nadaka]

I thik glyphGryph has the wrong idea about how proportional voting works. In every area i've encountered you still vote for candidates, not parties.

There are different ways of doing it. I am under the impression that the most common way was to vote for party.

How would proportional voting work for candidates anyway?

[Reelya]

The way Australia does it for the senate. Excess votes are distributed to your 2nd choices.

Bye you can choose to vote by party as well, since there are ~200 candidates to pick from in about 80 parties or so. The nature of the system leads to mushrooming out of legitimate parties, because your vote will probably end up with one of the larger 4-5 parties anyway, so even the Marijuana Party and the Sex Party get votes.

[palsch]

I thik glyphGryph has the wrong idea about how proportional voting works. In every area i've encountered you still vote for candidates, not parties.

In at least the British European elections you vote for party, with the (multiple) winners being chosen from a party list. Same goes for local additional member systems that are used as top-ups in Wales, Scotland and London.

I'm not a fan of party lists myself, although they do make more sense in a Parliamentary system than in an American context.

How would proportional voting work for candidates anyway?

See my wiki link about STV, or the electoral reform campaign's page on the matter.

I'd note that my own support for STV is broadly independent of it resulting in party proportionality. I like it for a range of other reasons, with a PR result being only a bonus as far as I'm concerned.

[scriver]

Das Wikipeden

The parties each list their candidates according to that party's determination of priorities. In closed list systems, voters vote for a list of candidates, with the party choosing the order of candidates on the list [and thus, in effect, their probability of being elected]. Each party is allocated seats in proportion to the number of votes it receives, using the party-determined ranking order. In an open list, voters may vote, depending on the model, for one person, or for two, or indicate their order of preference within the list – nevertheless the number of candidates elected from the list is determined by the number of votes the list receives.

I believe GlyphGryph is envisioning the Closed List system, but there is also the Open kind.