Searching \ for '[OT] Google are on to Russell mob rule' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=google+are+russell
Search entire site for: 'Google are on to Russell mob rule'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Google are on to Russell mob rule'
2007\06\12@183346 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

The 49% who did not vote did indeed participate.
They showed that they do not accept the "mob rule" component of
majority voting.  They did not participate in a mis-defined system of  
government.
Cedric

2007\06\12@231839 by Ling SM

flavicon
face
> The 49% who did not vote did indeed participate.
> They showed that they do not accept the "mob rule" component of
> majority voting.  They did not participate in a mis-defined system of  
> government.

Majority is no majority in the present system.

There at least be an option to "reject" all offers available to all, and
voting is made compulsory.  Majority only wins if majority > (unknown +
reject + opposition).

But then again, in this multi-polarised society, there may never a
winner.  And if one emerges, extremistism shall likely follow.

Ling SM

2007\06\13@005656 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Jun 12, 2007, at 8:18 PM, Ling SM wrote:

> There at least be an option to "reject" all offers available to all

There is in the US.  You can go into a voting booth, and not vote
for anyone or anything.  I find it very handy when there are a lot
of positions and/or propositions where I don't care enough to figure
out which way I want to vote...

BillW

2007\06\13@012529 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Majority is no majority in the present system.

> There at least be an option to "reject" all offers available to all,
> and
> voting is made compulsory.  Majority only wins if majority >
> (unknown +
> reject + opposition).

That's the way that our church meetings work.
Only those who attend have the right for their vote to be counted BUT
there is effectively no abstention - a motion must be passed by a
preset percentage of MEMBERS PRESENT. So an abstention is a no vote. I
have had trouble trying to explain that to some people over the years
:-).

The actual required percentage varies. For most vote categories it is
50% but rises to 66% and perhaps even 75% in some special cases.

I like 75.001% as a threshold. That way, for everyone who said NO
there is a person who said YES and then, after that and not including
those people, there is still an absolute majority. FWIW, when they do
happen, most of our motions get carried unanimously.



       Russell





2007\06\13@083814 by Tony Smith
picon face
> > Or just get involved -- only 49% of eligible voters in the U.S.
> > actually participated in the last election.
> >
> > --
> > Nate Duehr
> > .....nateKILLspamspam@spam@natetech.com
>
> The 49% who did not vote did indeed participate.
> They showed that they do not accept the "mob rule" component
> of majority voting.  They did not participate in a
> mis-defined system of government.
> Cedric


Sure, 'don't care' is a perfectly valid position.  25% pro-Bush + 50% don't
care = 75% happy with the status quo.  

Consider what would happen if you polled the world on 'Star Wars' vs 'Star
Trek':

Star Wars - 1%
Star Trek - 1%
Star huh? - 98% with "Bloody nerds, sod off and get back in your basement."

How is that any different to politics?  Besides, what happens if the 49% who
don't vote don't agree with your views?

Tony

2007\06\13@101726 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
>
> On Jun 12, 2007, at 10:56 PM, William Chops Westfield wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 12, 2007, at 8:18 PM, Ling SM wrote:
>
>> There at least be an option to "reject" all offers available to all
>
> There is in the US.  You can go into a voting booth, and not vote
> for anyone or anything.  I find it very handy when there are a lot
> of positions and/or propositions where I don't care enough to figure
> out which way I want to vote...
>
> BillW

I have never seen the abstentions reported by the media .....
Are they reported ?
Cedric

2007\06\13@102349 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

Tony, your style of discussion kills me.  ( not literally )  I think  
you have a habit of defining things in a manner that creates a  
strawman and then you bash the strawman down.  Not voting is not  
necessarily a " don't care".  In my case it is a "none of the above  
are satisfactory".

25% Bush and 50% no vote and 25% whoever means to me that 75% did not  
vote for Bush.

It is true that I do not like voting in any case since 95% of the  
voters can vote to rip-off the other 5%.  There are better forms of  
government than the democracy that exists in the USA.
Cedric

2007\06\13@110451 by piclist

flavicon
face

> 25% Bush and 50% no vote and 25% whoever means to me that 75% did not
> vote for Bush.

I somewhat disagree about that.  The way I see it is that those who do
not vote,
put in their vote as "I don't care" even if that "I don't care" really
means "I
don't care because I don't like any of my choices".  If that 50% actually did
go to the booths and did not choose anyone, then it drives a different
message,
that is, "Hey I care, but none of these choices are good for me".  Not
voting is
not the same as "I did not vote for you", it says "I'm fine with whomever
everybody else chooses".

I've been in the US for just under 20 years now and finally became a citizen 2
years ago, and last year was the first time I was able to vote.  There was no
way I was not going to show up to vote just because I did not like the
names on
that form.  Since I had never voted before I was rather surprised to find out
that you could actually write down some random name in some of the spots where
you did not like the choices you had.  So Mickey Mouse got a few votes from me
last year =)


-Mario

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.



2007\06\13@111927 by Robert Rolf

picon face
Cedric Chang wrote:

> It is true that I do not like voting in any case since 95% of the  
> voters can vote to rip-off the other 5%.  There are better forms of  
> government than the democracy that exists in the USA.

Such as? And why?

R

2007\06\13@113445 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
> you had.  So Mickey Mouse got a few votes from me last year =)


Mickey Mouse is a corporate shill. Write in Santa Clause or the Easter
Bunny.

---
James.


2007\06\13@114231 by John Pfaff

picon face
Cedric Chang wrote:

> It is true that I do not like voting in any case since 95% of the voters can vote to rip-off the other 5%.  There are better forms of government than the democracy that exists in the USA.
>  

The United States does not have a democracy.  We have a representative
republic.  There is a difference.

What form(s) of government are better?

2007\06\13@120414 by piclist

flavicon
face
Good point.  It'll be remembered in the next elections =)


Quoting James Newtons Massmind <.....jamesnewtonKILLspamspam.....massmind.org>:

>> you had.  So Mickey Mouse got a few votes from me last year =)
>
>
> Mickey Mouse is a corporate shill. Write in Santa Clause or the Easter
> Bunny.
>
> ---
> James.
>
>
> -

2007\06\13@185322 by Tony Smith

picon face

> 25% Bush and 50% no vote and 25% whoever means to me that 75%
> did not vote for Bush.


That's what I said.

The 50% are happy either way.  Saying they did/didn't vote Bush (or Kerry)
is irrelevant.  You can say the 50% are pro/anti Bush, it doesn't matter.
They are 'meh, whatever dude' Bush.

The correct answer to 'Star Wars' vs 'Star Trek' is, of course, 'Doctor
Who'.  Right, too many deadlines for [*OT]...

Tony

2007\06\13@190100 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
>
> On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:42 AM, John Pfaff wrote:
>
> Cedric Chang wrote:
>
>> It is true that I do not like voting in any case since 95% of the  
>> voters can vote to rip-off the other 5%.  There are better forms  
>> of government than the democracy that exists in the USA.
>>
>
> The United States does not have a democracy.  We have a representative
> republic.  There is a difference.
>
> What form(s) of government are better?

You are correct that the US supposedly has a representative  
republic.  In practice it is more like an oligarchy with a large  
number of members belonging to the ruling class.  Handouts to  
selected groups outside the ruling class keeps any major of rebellion  
from occurring.  Minor rebellions occur all the time.

The form of national government I favor is a constitutional republic  
which has a military sufficient to defend it's borders and a set of  
rules that force the states to maximally respect the autonomy of  
individuals.  Very few criminal laws would be existent.  Voting on  
the national scale would be minimal.  I realize such a government is  
a pipe dream since most people live in terror of death, competition  
and personal responsibility.  Such people select " Uncle Sam " or  
equivalent to take care of them.  I also favor one world government  
following these principles.  This would amp down regional conflicts.  
Because of the nature of most people the chance of such a government  
being put into practice is described in two words :   " Fat Chance "

The closest the world ever came to this was in the USA between 1790  
and the early 1800's.
Best
Cedric

2007\06\13@194836 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
James Newtons Massmind wrote:

> Mickey Mouse is a corporate shill. Write in Santa Clause or the Easter
> Bunny.

At least Santa Claus is of doubtful origin and in all likelihood has sold
his soul to the corporations that run the major commerce show of all times.

:)

Gerhard

2007\06\15@142446 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Tony Smith wrote:

> The 50% are happy either way.  Saying they did/didn't vote Bush (or Kerry)
> is irrelevant.  You can say the 50% are pro/anti Bush, it doesn't matter.
> They are 'meh, whatever dude' Bush.

indifferent != happy.

Nate

2007\06\16@070743 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > The 50% are happy either way.  Saying they did/didn't vote Bush (or
> > Kerry) is irrelevant.  You can say the 50% are pro/anti
> Bush, it doesn't matter.
> > They are 'meh, whatever dude' Bush.
>
> indifferent != happy.
>
> Nate


True, doesn't mean they're unhappy either (what would Heisenberg say).  Next
you'll tell me ignorance isn't bliss after all.

That 50% doesn't seem unhappy enough to storm the White House and install
the libertarian utopia that apparently we all want.  I guess this is where I
insert the Heinlein (RAH RAH RAH!) quote.

Good lord, they might all vote PETA!

Maybe the 50% are all NRA supporters; wouldn't that be interesting.  (I've
always loved how the NRA promotes gun safety courses (fair enough) but it
always seems to be young white folk (ie farmers).  How come the brothers
down in the hood don't get no learning?  They be the ones having all the
accidents, right?)

Anyway, I doubt the end result would change even if the US had 100% voter
turnout.  Australia has 100% participation (we at least show up), and the
trends are similar to those in the US.  Two parties, labelled liberal or
conservative, with the vote more-or-less evenly split between them.  The
minor parties (hippies, pinkos, druggies, gun nuts, fundies, greenies etc)
don't matter much.  I'd assume places like the UK, Canada & NZ would be
similar.

Well, that's probably enough to upset the "Gah! This is important!!!" folk.
Now to go back to figuring out why ADOX doesn't like setting permissions on
Access forms.  Gah & meh indeed.

Tony

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...