On Tue, 30 May 2023 16:19:17 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:

>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.)

You wouldn't need to - if you listed only the parties you would agree
to have your vote transferred to and left those you would let hell
freeze over before you voted for them (like most of us here would feel
about most of the parties you name) it would have the same effect.

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 12:12:54 AM UTC-4, Johnny1A wrote:

> Since the claim of 'unbiased and accurate' is factually false, it does not provide a reason to put faith in them.

All your arguments apply to 'right wing' sources as well - Fox News, for example, has been
shown in court to have knowingly reported falsehoods so as not to alienate its audience.

How do *you* determine what's true, Johnny? What sources do you regard as trustworthy?
RealRawNews.com?

pt

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>,
> >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.

That makes not the slightest sense.

>
> 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.....

The blame here lies with the people themselves, not the ballot system.

Personally I would have loved to hear Bernier's non-concession speech.
I imagine that it was better for the conservative party that it not be given.

Had Bernier just gone along like an adult, he'd have won the next time and
would now be our PM in waiting. But when you put children in high office
this is what happens.

William Hyde

On 6/5/2023 3:29 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> 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>,
>>> 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.
>
> That makes not the slightest sense.
>
Of course not! It's a political convention. :P

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

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.
> >
> >(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.

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>,
>> >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.
>
>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.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

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>,
>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 9:06:31 PM UTC-4, Hamish Laws 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>,
> > >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.
> 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

Bernier believed that he lost the leadership not due to the voting system, but due to the dairy
industry, which, he said, bought the delegates from parts of rural Quebec, an area which
otherwise might have been expected to support him.

Of course, our selection of delegates for such conventions is a corrupt and shameless affair, a national
scandal, but Bernier didn't object until it was his ox being gored.

His speech, I expect, would have focused on this, and not at all been a call for unity, perhaps not even
a concession speech.

He's running in a by-election currently. The Conservatives are turning all the big guns on him, including calling
this libertarian a "liberal". Speaking of shameless...

William Hyde

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>,
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

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>,
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

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>,
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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?

John

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 1:04:09 AM UTC+10, 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>,
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> 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.

In Australia we still use paper voting for a preferential election system
Aren't the individual US votes printed for the voter to check and pass in?
If so hand recounts are still supported

>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.

Nah, he's so far away from sane on this that pretty much nothing could increase his idiocy level there

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 10:41:11 AM UTC+10, John Halpenny wrote:
> 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>,
> > >>>>>> 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.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 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?
>
No

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>,
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 6/8/2023 8:53 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> 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>,
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.

Like I said, the _DETAILS_ might of changed but the _SCALE_ of his
effort would not have.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

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, 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>,
> > >>>>>> 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.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 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?

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.

William Hyde

In article <11dcb29f-f183-4d3e-a65b-0127e32d315dn@googlegroups.com>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>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, 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>,
>> > >>>>>> 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.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> 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?
>
>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.

Thanks to the Bloc popularity in Quebec making Quebec irrelevant at
a federal level, Ontario had a disproportionate effect on who formed
the government.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 16:06:53 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>>>> 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.
>>
>> That makes not the slightest sense.
>>
>Of course not! It's a political convention. :P
>
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?

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.

On 6/11/2023 2:49 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 16:06:53 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That makes not the slightest sense.
>>>
>> Of course not! It's a political convention. :P
>>
> 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?
>
> Surely the idea is not to pick somebody ideological pure who has no
> hope in hell of "winning in November"?
>
In a rational world, yes. But politics isn't always rational. For many
it is about control and power over others and they don't care what the
majority wants.

What is also happening (at least in the US) is that centrist voters
aren't voting in the primaries. So only the extremists vote in the
primaries and they vote for the extremist candidates. So the centrist
candidates get "primaried" out and aren't on the ballot in the main
election. Which drives more centrist voters away, rinse and repeat.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 14:49:27 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 16:06:53 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That makes not the slightest sense.
>>>
>>Of course not! It's a political convention. :P
>>
>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?
>
>Surely the idea is not to pick somebody ideological pure who has no
>hope in hell of "winning in November"?

For a /political/ party, yes.

But for an /ideological/ party, no.

Indeed, choosing candidates based on their ideological purity is one
way of recognizing an ideological pary.

>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.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

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.

John Savard

In article <26239c09-abd7-4764-93bc-2ed5b9a83053n@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>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.

(Hal Heydt)
That varies by state. Some states use primaries, which may be open
or closed. Others use a caucus system (e.g. Iowa).