 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - - Posts by Arwon |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 |
| User | Post | ||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 145/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| I obviously did not see the debate, but the general consensus seems to be either a Kerry win or a stalemate. Either way, that's very good for Kerry. Without 9/11 and terorrism and Iraq, Bush is basically nothing - he seems to constantly draw back to these things. If Kerry managed to hold his own on national security he's probably going to gain the ascendency from here on in. Bush hasn't been exposed so freely in public that much - scripted press conferences, weak reporters, staged meetings etc, and now that he didn't manage to decisively win in the one area he's actually strong in, I should expect him crumble over the rest of these things. What are the other topics? (edited by Arwon on 10-01-04 08:04 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 146/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Yeah, that's what I meant - the topics for the other debates. Sorry for the lack of clarity. | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 147/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Actually, in that extreme a situation with a guaranteed safe outcome, I'd say you'd be well entitled, nay, obligated, to give in... and that this wouldn't open any "pandora's box". That a govenrment can be forced to cave in to small demands with a nuclear device, doesn't necessary mean that and guaranteed threat. To mix several metaphors, the idea with a "door opening" or a Pandora's Box is that it starts small, then things snowball bigger and bigger down a slippery slope. Starting out with the nuclear thing doesn't really fit that. As to the general topic: This sort of stuff is ugly and demoralising, but not insurmountable. The key to remember is that "the bad guys" aren't a single coherant group, and the vicious stunts of the sorts of hardliners doing these things doesn't mean it's not possible to change the views and behaviour of even more moderate militiants. The absolute radical extreme can never be negotiated with, but various situations have repeatedly shown the extremists can be marginalised by their own actions, can lose their support, and moderate, pragmatic realists can gain more ascendency - nobody much listens to the "Real IRA" and the ETA's violent extremists are a thing of the past. Even Sri Lanka shows signs of progress. Sure, extremists in Iraq at the moment are having a field day, but situations do change and fluctuate. Personally I don't think there's any way there won't be a civil war - hell, there pretty much already is - but we shall see. Also, I'm not convinced it's a hugely bad thing that the Philipenes or other countries pull out token presences bcause of kidnapper demands. Certainly doesn't warrant the hysterical screams of "appeasers!" that some idiots have been heard to utter. They were only there in the first place for political rather than practical reasons so why shouldn't they withdraw for political reasons too? (edited by Arwon on 10-01-04 08:25 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 148/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| I'm pretty sure I have one of the smallest layouts. Um, also, I have images switched off in my browser, otherwise this site with all its fancy over the top layouts takes waaay too much time to load. So go nuts with the images - I don't care. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 149/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Good that you're avoiding Family First. They're a pack of Christian fundamentalist anti-gay anti-porn moral-authoritarian lunatics and they worry me. They have secured several preference deals, have embarked on a MASSIVE publicity campaign, and could capture a surprising percentage of the vote. Maybe even a couple of senate seats. What seat are you in? Somewhere in South Australia? When all else fails, vote on local issues, I suppose. I'll be voting Green and Democrat, then Libertarian in the NSW senate. In Gilmore, my electorate, it won't matter because Liberal MP Joanna Gash will be re-elected. I'll probably vote Green then Labor, and make sure Family First and One Nation are LAS LAST LAST. I alternate between liking the look of Latham, and merely thinking "well he isn't Howard" (I was nearly yelling at him in the debate to BE MORE BETTER) but I think that I could handle his being in power. He seems an okay sort, even if I don't like all his ideas and stunts. ------- PREFERENTIAL SYSTEM EXPLAINED: ------- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES The Preferential System actually functions differently in each House, which I think causes some confusion. In the House of Representatives, it is called the SINGLE TRANSFERRABLE BALLOT because your vote gets transferred from candidate to candidate as they are counted. You get a straight list of candidates for your electorate, which you number in order of preferences. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. During counting of the votes, they eliminate the candidate with the least number of votes (say, One Nation with 500) and those votes are allocated according to number '2' preferences (say, 400 to the Liberals and 100 to the Nationals). Then the next lowest candidate is eliminated, and their votes are re-allocated. If a ballot's second choice is eliminate the ballot goes to the 3rd choice, and so forth. In this way, candidates are eliminated and votes are redistributed until someone has over 50% of the vote. If someone gets over 50% of the first preferences - the PRIMARY VOTE - then they don't bother counting preferences, of course. So really, whoever you vote for, you still end up having to choose whether you like Labor or Liberals more as your Member of Parliament. Usually. This is referred to as the TWO-PARTY PREFERRED count. In some seats it's the Nationals or the Country Liberal Party as the second party, or, occasionally, an independant or (god forbid) One Nation. Maybe even the Greens or Family First, in the future. Remember though, who you vote for as first preference (PRIMARY VOTE) gets counted as well, even though you end up voting for one of the major parties through preferences. Candidates recieve some sort of campaign funding for every primary vote recieved. So it is still worth voting for a minor party... sort of. Just imagine that your vote makes them feel nice and well-liked, just like a nice fuzzy hug. ------- Then you have the SENATE. When the news talks about "preference deals" they are referring to the Senate, whose preferential system is more complicated. The Senate uses PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION meaning you elect them by state rather than electorate. 12 from each state, half of the senate being elected each time (unless there is a "double dissolution" which is rare and not happenin this time so let's ignore it). In the senate, candidates are organised on the Ballot by GROUP, not as individuals. They are listed in columns - Group A, Group B, etc. You can vote ABOVE THE LINE or BELOW THE LINE. Above the line you vote for a group, below the line you have to number every single individual candidate in order of preference. Let's ignore that, most people don't do it and I wouldn't think you would. Mostly that's how people obsessed with a single issue might vote. Voting ABOVE THE LINE means you number the boxes at the top of each column. You can number Just One Box, or you can number All Boxes. In calculating who gets senate seats, they do a rather complicated preference distribution system I don't fully understand, until 6 seats have been filled by QUOTA. If a group/column/party gets the quota in First Preferences(around 14% I think), they automatically get a senate seat first off - the top person on their list gets the seat. If they get enough they might automatically get two senate seats, and the top two people on the ballot list get in - Labour and Liberals both usually get two seats in most states. The rest of the votes are then distributed by preferences until they reach Quotas and fill the seats. If you number ALL the senate columns your ballot is distributed accoridng to those preferences, as candidates are elminated on the way to a 6 seat quota. If you ONLY place a number 1 in a senate box, then this is where PREFERENCE DEALS between the parties come into play. Basically, you are allowing the group (party) you vote for, to distribute preferences the way THEY want to. You are letting that group choose their own preferences, for who they want into the senate. The Democrats and Greens exchange preferences, meaning that if one is eliminated from the senate counting, the other gets all their ballots. The Greens usually put Labor ahead of Liberal so a "1" for the Greens will get you a Labor Senator before a Liberal one, but will get you a Green or a Democrat Senator before either of them. It's basically a more complicated, group-based version of the House of Reps preference system with a a state choosing six seats, instead of an electorate choosing one seat. It is in the Senate that you are far more likely to see minor parties get in. If you don't get it all this properly, and it is rather baffling... or even if you are just lazy, I'd recommend voting ABOVE THE LINE, either just numbering ONE box above the line in the senate, or numbering them ALL, starting with the groups you KNOW you like... then a major party... then the rest in any order, then the ones you know you don't. The major party after the ones you like, will stop your vote from going to the quota for a candidate you don't like. So for an example, I'll go Green 1, Dem 2 (or 1 Dem, 2 Green), Libertarian 3, Labour 4, then the rest, then Liberal, then National, One Nation and Family First last, so there is no way my vote helps a candidate I don't like get a senate seat. THERE. That took a lot of time and effort and I do hope you read it, and I also hope you understand a bit better now. Sorry if I came across as condescending or patronising, I have no idea how much you do or do not know about our wonderfully obscure and complicated (yet quite fair, really) electoral system. (edited by Arwon on 10-02-04 12:19 PM) (edited by Arwon on 10-02-04 12:30 PM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 150/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
Originally posted by windwakerOriginally posted by Chaos Force Is there a particular answer you're fishing for here? |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 151/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Well Colleen, your senate is appointed by the govenrment and Governor General, as positions become vacated, and is fairly weak and puppet-like as a result. In Australia our senate is a very strong, effective counter-balance to the power of the lower house. So you'd have to make whole-sale constitution altering changes to get anywhere close to our Senate system. Much less our insanely complicated Senate voting system. As to the HoC/HoR all you'd have to do is change the ballot to a preferential ballot rather than "tick one box". In the HoR voting is not very difficult. Looking at Taryn's ballot paper for instance: She just has to number the 7 boxes in order of preference. So if she wants to make sure she doesn't help FF or ON, all she has to do is put them 6th and 7th. Something like this: 4-Andrew SOUTHCOTT*---Liberal Party 5-Paul STARLING-------Independent 2-Robert SIMMS--------Australian Democrats 3-Chloe FOX-----------Australian Labor Party 1-Adrian MILLER-------Greens 7-Paul MUNN-----------Family First Party 6-Clarke STAKER-------One Nation This would guarantee that she didn't help FF or ONP. I don't know who the independant is, maybe Taryn can shed some light. Oh and Taryn, I live In Gilmore so you can see why it doesn't matter how I vote in the House of Reps. We had the largest pro-Liberal swing in the country in 2000. Granted last time the result was so bad because everyone hated the Labor candidate, but even so, we have no hope of unseating the Liberal. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A DEMOCRAT! WE HAVE 3 CRAZY LUNATIC CANDIDATES OUT OF 6. (One Nation, Citizen's Electoral Council, Christian Democrats) PLUS I think we might have a Family First candidate, too. (edited by Arwon on 10-02-04 11:40 PM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 152/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Probably a weird quirk in his Massachusetts accent? | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 153/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| He means he will help you find other people to have sex with. Um, I would probably say Europe (Spain, Denmark and the Czech Republic, especially) or South America since I've already done the whole USA thing, and I live in Australia. Japan doesn't really interest me. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 154/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Where's the "this poll is terribly laid out" option? Um. Part of me says global integration into a single government is a possible solution to many problems in the world - since so many result from the fundamental disconnect between national sovereignty and pressing global issues. This is more likely to occur voluntarily and peacemeal, as people in different regions see the benefits and want in. So the EU is a useful lab test. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 155/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Hmm. "The Tank" appeals to me for some reason. And as for a description: "Politics, religion, current affairs, philosophy, morality, and all that fun stuff that makes your brain-meat throb with pain. I am right because I am and you're all wrong and ugly!" (edited by Arwon on 10-06-04 12:16 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 156/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| I said "the tank" with "think tank" in mind, but really I'd rather my proposed description was used than the off the cuff name idea. I think it hits the right tone. Serious but in a perky and fun sort of way. | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 157/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| "But never discount Canada, the single most beautiful nature preserve on the planet." Maybe second most beautiful. But to each their own, I guess! |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 158/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Uber-Indie? They're one of the biggest most well known bands in the entire world! | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 159/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| I suppose they're referring to the vicious puritannical streak still running through sections of American society. The anal, shrill-voiced, hyper-religious, anti-drug, anti-alcohol, anti-sex people... you know... the anti-fun brigade? | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 160/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Or, on that note, "The Entropy Room" | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 161/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| "If the EU is really so interested in human rights, why was it opposed to the Iraq war? Was Saddam not a consistant violator of human rights? Is the fact that the United States was acting in its "own self-interest" such a terrible thing that we don't deserve help? Or perhaps the EU is more interested in letting the USA deal with its own mess than the welfare of the Iraqi people?" *NRRRRT* *TWITCH* But the... and... wha... zuh. Humanitarian motives were an incidental thing that made this ideological and political war easier to swallow. Otherwise the US would have invaded a place like Sudan instead. Burma? Congo? Zimbabwe? Uzbekistan? Fix all those places then we'll talk about altruism and humanitarian motives. Until then, poses of being the world's sole defender and promoter of freedom and democracy look awfully hollow and opportunistic. As for why the EU doesn't get involved with things now... I suppose they probably view it as being a political point-scoring opportunity for Bush after the damage-headed, belligerent way he and his government carried on before during and after the invasion ("see, nyah! we was right! woulf be the haughty cry). Additionally it would be a damaging domestic political move for member countries (never underestimate the degree of antipathy felt towards Bush in other parts of the world and how giving him any concessions looks like lackeydom). Then there's the simple fact that they'd most likely view involvement there as time, money and lives wasted - that it's a lost cause already, messed up beyond repair. Sending troops and companies and money into an active civil war (let's call a spade a spade here) is usually not a wise move. Also, it was America's (and Britain and Australia's) war, and trying to palm off the blame now on the EU, as some are seeming to do, is absolutely absurd. That's like blaming the countries that did't get involved in Vietnam (the UK for example) for what happened there. "Like it or not, the United States has created two democracies in the past 3 years.. sure, they're not the most functional democracies on Earth, but to imply that the EU is somehow the organization that will promote democracy and human rights (as opposed to the US) either means that you're talking about sometime in the future that's definately not a given, or that you're implying the words speak louder than actions." Well they're doing okay in Eastern Europe, eh? Sure it's the subtler "carrot" approach to America's "stick" but you can't really claim the EU hasn't had and isn't having results. (edited by Arwon on 10-08-04 04:38 AM) (edited by Arwon on 10-08-04 04:42 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 162/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Because then we might end up with something I hate but some other silly people like. ...and we can't have that. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 163/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
Originally posted by The SomerZOriginally posted by LegionOriginally posted by Ziffski J) Because they had the most badass religion ever. The Vikings were so amazingly hard and tough that they had a religion based on the idea that their world will end in a huge destructive battle in which THEIR GODS LOSE and mostly die in battle, leaving the world a virtual wasteland. These guys saw the world in those fatalistic terms yet still went out and kicked ass. Do you think Christians or Muslims would be so hard and all-conquering if they knew their God was going to get His ass kicked by Satan in the end? (edited by Arwon on 10-08-04 11:25 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 164/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| "As bad as each other but in different ways" works fine for me. On a tangential note... any arguments with my assertion that Iraq is now in civil war? |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - - Posts by Arwon |
(just kiddin' with y'all..)