On 03/05/22 05:26, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2022-05-02, Peter Moylan wrote:

>> When I got married in Belgium I ran into the assumption that every
>> country does it that way. I had to supply a "certificat de
>> domicile": an official document specifying my nationality and
>> current address, and they wouldn't accept my statement that
>> Australia doesn't have such a thing. "Just ask for it at the town
>> hall", they said. But the town hall didn't know where I lived.
>> "Then get it at the police station", they said. Couldn't do that,
>> because I didn't have a criminal record.
>>
>> I thought I could solve the problem by asking the AEC (the body
>> that runs elections), because they do have my address. No luck
>> there, either. They could certify my registered address, but
>> couldn't certify that I was an Australian citizen, because of a
>> grandfather clause that allows some UK citizens to vote in
>> Australia.
>
> Is this a bureaucrat stereotype rule that *one* official document
> has to specify nationality & current address? (Otherwise you could
> show them your passport & AEC document.)

I offered to do that, and even pointed out that the information they
wanted was already contained in the other documents that I had already
supplied. But no, stapling two bits of paper together did not create a
single document. It was still two documents, and therefore unacceptable.

The world seems to be full of people who think that the rules in their
little corner of the world are universal laws of nature.

My final solution, by the way, was to supply a statutory declaration.
That's a statement in my own words that I assert certain information to
be true, countersigned by a Justice of the Peace to certify that I had
indeed claimed what I said, and as a witness for my signature[1]. That's
a document recognised by Australian law. I was slightly surprised that
it was accepted in another country. I'm sure other countries have
something similar in overall concept, but probably not in precise detail.

[1] Contrary to common belief, the JP does not certify that the claims
are correct. He/she only certifies that I am the person who is making
the claims.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 03/05/22 03:01, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2022 12:02:35 -0400, Rich Ulrich
> <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

>> You've left this unstated -- If the Republican candidate is going
>> to win the state-wide office, then you have to be registered as a
>> Republican and vote in that primary, if you want your vote to
>> matter in selecting that candidate.
>
> I should have written "Not for a Republican candidate for state or
> federal office in the General Election". As a registered Republican,
> I can vote only in the Primary for Republicans, and I have voted in
> every Primary, so I have voted for Republicans. I vote for the
> least-worst candidate and that is rarely the candidate who will be on
> the General Election ballot.

Voting for the least-worst candidate sounds like the obvious thing to
do, but some people here do the opposite and engage in what is called
"tactical voting". That is where they join a party they don't support,
and then try to promote the candidates with the greatest likelihood of
losing.

Of course, this does not work in regions where one party has so many
rusted-on voters that their candidate will always win.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 03/05/22 03:54, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
> If I chose to join (say) the Conservative party[1], I would pay them
> £25 p/a and they would add me to the membership list which they
> keep.
>
> My membership of a party is of no concern to no-one else.
>
> [1] It's a bargain, since the Labour party want £56.04 p/a to join
> their club.

If it's anything like Australia, the dominant right-wing party has less
of a need to raise money from its members, because of massive corporate
donations.

As an extra factor, the Liberal Party here is pretty much owned by
Rupert Murdoch, who has enormous power for telling people how they
should vote.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On Tue, 3 May 2022 11:27:02 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 03/05/22 03:01, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 May 2022 12:02:35 -0400, Rich Ulrich
>> <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> You've left this unstated -- If the Republican candidate is going
>>> to win the state-wide office, then you have to be registered as a
>>> Republican and vote in that primary, if you want your vote to
>>> matter in selecting that candidate.
>>
>> I should have written "Not for a Republican candidate for state or
>> federal office in the General Election". As a registered Republican,
>> I can vote only in the Primary for Republicans, and I have voted in
>> every Primary, so I have voted for Republicans. I vote for the
>> least-worst candidate and that is rarely the candidate who will be on
>> the General Election ballot.
>
>Voting for the least-worst candidate sounds like the obvious thing to
>do, but some people here do the opposite and engage in what is called
>"tactical voting". That is where they join a party they don't support,
>and then try to promote the candidates with the greatest likelihood of
>losing.
>
>Of course, this does not work in regions where one party has so many
>rusted-on voters that their candidate will always win.

Trust Florida Republican political operatives to be innovative in the
area of sneaky politics.

In our last election, they created "ghost candidates" in two districts
to siphon off votes for Democrats that otherwise might have won the
election.

https://www.wcjb.com/2020/11/24/ghost-candidates-blamed-for-siphoning-votes-in-florida-senate-races/

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

Mon, 2 May 2022 18:48:40 -0400: Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> scribeva:

>There is no such document in Germany, either. The document that carries
>your address is the ID card that is only handed out to German citizens,
>so that's implicit, but a resident who isn't a citizen can't prove both
>at once.

That too doesn't have an address on it in the Netherlands.

On 2022-05-02 22:58, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Mon, 2 May 2022 18:48:40 -0400: Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> scribeva:
>
>> There is no such document in Germany, either. The document that carries
>> your address is the ID card that is only handed out to German citizens,
>> so that's implicit, but a resident who isn't a citizen can't prove both
>> at once.
>
> That too doesn't have an address on it in the Netherlands.

Do they still use International Drivers Licenses in Europe?

I was once told (back in the early 60s) that in Belgium, you didn't have
to take a driving test to get a license.

True? False?

Mon, 2 May 2022 12:12:07 -0400: Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> scribeva:

>* Ruud Harmsen:
>
>> Mon, 2 May 2022 05:03:16 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>>>On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 1:29:14 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>> Sun, 01 May 2022 11:15:41 -0400: Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com>
>>>> scribeva:
>>>
>>>> > My wife and I changed our voter registration to reflect our new
>>>> > address at the DMV (Division of Motor Vehicles) office when we applied
>>>> > for new driver's licenses because of the change in our address.
>>>>
>>>> In the Netherlands where I live, no voter registration is necessary,
>>>> because municipalities have a registration of the people who live
>>>> there. Municipalities exchange the data when people move. For every
>>>> election, potential voters automatically get a card sent to their home
>>>> address so they can vote.
>>>
>>>That means you have those infamous "papers" you have to carry.
>>
>> Electronic voting would be much better. But they never managed to make
>> it 1. safe 2. secret. 3 traceable enough. Or reproducible, is probably
>> a better word. Recountable.
>
>Yes, the matter of recount is a big one. AIUI, the experts are favoring
>paper for the time being.
>
>I think an important consideration is that democracy needs a system that
>most people understand and trust (to a degree), and that's hard to
>achieve with purely electronic systems.

Perhaps modern blockchain techniques can solve that?

>The first time I ever participated in an election, it was using a
>machine, purely mechanical at the time (1980s). Even those were viewed
>with suspicion. Some people claimed the polling officers could
>distinguish the selections by sound.

Yes. Or by leaked radio signals.

>Those machines mostly fell out of
>use because most elections had more choices than the machines could
>accomodate (12, I think).

On 2022-05-02, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> On Mon, 02 May 2022 20:27:34 +0100
> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
> []
>>
>> --
>> Outside of the city limits the heart of darkness, the true wasteland
>> begins. --Ignatius J Reillly
>
> I suspect Ignatius would have been fullly capable of the pretentiousness of the third 'l', but I don't think he did:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Confederacy_of_Dunces#Ignatius_J._Reilly

Corrected in the sig file now; thanks for pointing that out.

--
You cannot really appreciate Dilbert unless you've read it in the
original Klingon. ---Klingon Programmer's Guide

* Ruud Harmsen:

> Mon, 2 May 2022 12:12:07 -0400: Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> scribeva:
>
>>* Ruud Harmsen:
>>
>>> Mon, 2 May 2022 05:03:16 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>
>>>>On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 1:29:14 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>> Sun, 01 May 2022 11:15:41 -0400: Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com>
>>>>> scribeva:
>>>>
>>>>> > My wife and I changed our voter registration to reflect our new
>>>>> > address at the DMV (Division of Motor Vehicles) office when we applied
>>>>> > for new driver's licenses because of the change in our address.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the Netherlands where I live, no voter registration is necessary,
>>>>> because municipalities have a registration of the people who live
>>>>> there. Municipalities exchange the data when people move. For every
>>>>> election, potential voters automatically get a card sent to their home
>>>>> address so they can vote.
>>>>
>>>>That means you have those infamous "papers" you have to carry.
>>>
>>> Electronic voting would be much better. But they never managed to make
>>> it 1. safe 2. secret. 3 traceable enough. Or reproducible, is probably
>>> a better word. Recountable.
>>
>>Yes, the matter of recount is a big one. AIUI, the experts are favoring
>>paper for the time being.
>>
>>I think an important consideration is that democracy needs a system that
>>most people understand and trust (to a degree), and that's hard to
>>achieve with purely electronic systems.
>
> Perhaps modern blockchain techniques can solve that?

The understanding and trusting? Hardly. I don't know how it works, and I
have a math background, but I haven't felt like putting a few days of
work into it.

Even with just public/private keys, you can create a system where all
the results are public and with your private key you can check what your
vote is counted as, but for most people, it would remain just magic and
feel intransparent.

Neither that nor blockchain can be picked up in a 10-minutes explainer.

>>The first time I ever participated in an election, it was using a
>>machine, purely mechanical at the time (1980s). Even those were viewed
>>with suspicion. Some people claimed the polling officers could
>>distinguish the selections by sound.
>
> Yes. Or by leaked radio signals.

With another type of machine, maybe. The ones I was talking about, from
the 1980s, had fairly large metal knobs on which you'd pull, then
there'd be a ka-chang sound to know that it worked. Internally, they
would update a counter and produce a record in the form of a paper with
punched holes (I think).

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

* Ruud Harmsen:

> Mon, 2 May 2022 18:48:40 -0400: Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> scribeva:
>
>>There is no such document in Germany, either. The document that carries
>>your address is the ID card that is only handed out to German citizens,
>>so that's implicit, but a resident who isn't a citizen can't prove both
>>at once.
>
> That too doesn't have an address on it in the Netherlands.

Is there any government-issued document with an address on it, then?

Of course the address on any long-term ID can be outdated, so it'll not
suffice when it's really important.

--
Jesus is like Elvis - I love the guy, but the fan club scares me.
-- John Fugelsang

* Tony Cooper:

> On Mon, 2 May 2022 18:40:15 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 1:54:16 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>> On 02-May-22 14:08, CDB wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Registering as a "party-supporter" in the US allows you to vote in the
>>>>> primaries that determine who that party's candidate will be; it does not
>>>>> commit you to vote for the candidate. Tony has long been a registered
>>>>> Republican, but has said here that he has not voted for their candidate
>>>>> for a long time.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that is how it is done, but I still find it odd that a
>>>> 'government' should have reason to keep a register of party affiliation.
>>>
>>> It's "the government" -- usually a county Board of Elections -- that
>>> administers elections (subject to the supervision of, usually, the
>>> state's Secretary of State). How could they do that if they didn't
>>> know who was qualified to receive which party's ballot during the
>>> voting in the primary?
>>
>>Which raises the question: Did Trump become president because a bunch of
>>Democrats registered as Republicans in an attempt to sabotage the
>>Republican Party by voting for the candidate they thought couldn't
>>possibly win?
>>
> That "spoiler" voting exists as a factor only in the Primary. The
> intent is to have a non-electable candidate the nominee of the party.
>
> The 2016 GOP Primaries were basically a contest between Ted Cruz and
> Donald Trump. If a candidate would have emerged from that contest as
> a result of a spoiler vote, it would have been Marco Rubio or maybe
> John Kasich. Neither would have been considered to have much of
> chance against Hillary.
>
>>In the American system, there's no good reason for the President to be
>>affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German system, you
>>elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head of government should
>>be very much aligned with the party and its platform, or it's confusing.
>
> That assumes that the party *has* a platform that the voters can
> identify and agree with. In the US, the platform the voters identify
> with is whatever the candidate declares to be his or her primary
> objectives. After the election, the party aligns with the winning
> candidate.

I can't get behind that process at all. A presidential candidate will
always in large part be elected based on personality rather than
(announced) policies, and then has such an outsized influence, it seems
likely to me that someone who had to get along with a few dozen party
functionaries over a few years to get into such an office represents a
compromise of a larger swath of varied opinions than that "popularly
elected" one. And is subject to more checks on those announced policies
while in office.

--
If someone has a penis (or we think they have a penis) we use
he/him/his pronouns and treat them like a boy/man. If someone
has a vagina (or we think they have a vagina) we use she/her/
hers pronouns and treat them like a girl/woman.
See what I did there? -- Kyl Myers

On 5/2/2022 6:18 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> * bil...@shaw.ca:
>> Quinn C wrote:

>>> An interesting aspect of politics here in Montreal is that the
>>> federal parties play no role at all in local elections. All seats
>>> on the council are held by local parties with names like "Projet
>>> Montreal". In Toronto, everyone seems to be (officially)
>>> Independent, but maybe others can shed light on how it really
>>> works.

>> That's more or less standard across Canada. Local parties in
>> municipal elections rarely have formal ties with provincial or
>> federal parties, nor are there usually formal ties between federal
>> and provincial parties, even when they share the same name
>> (especially Liberal or Conservative) and political philosophy.

>> Example: a member of a provincial Liberal party could not run for
>> the federal Liberal party without first becoming a member, of the
>> federal party.

> Ok, but nobody really believes in that fine distinction, do they?
> Commentary never bothers to even say. It's "the Liberals" and "the
> NDP" that we hear about in the provincial elections, without adding
> "of Quebec", like, ever.

I have seen comments in French that refer to the PLQ and the PLC. In
English, the Conservatives are the CPC federally, the PCP
("Progressive") in many provinces, and the UCP ("United") in Alberta.

Those are scare-quotes.

On 5/2/2022 12:12 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> * CDB:
>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> scribeva:
>>>> Janet wrote:
>>>>> rh@rudhar.com says...
>>>>>> Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> scribeva:

>>>>>>> My wife and I changed our voter registration to reflect
>>>>>>> our new address at the DMV (Division of Motor Vehicles)
>>>>>>> office when we applied for new driver's licenses because
>>>>>>> of the change in our address.

>>>>>> In the Netherlands where I live, no voter registration is
>>>>>> necessary, because municipalities have a registration of
>>>>>> the people who live there.

>>>>> In the UK, not every resident is entitled to vote. YMMV

>>>>> Those who are entitled to vote, are required to register on
>>>>> the electoral roll.

>>>>> From July each year Electoral Registration Offices (EROs)
>>>>> contact households to check if the details on the electoral
>>>>> register are correct. This is called the annual canvass.

>>>>> https://www.gov.uk/electoral-register

>>>>> Political Party membership in UK is entirely divorced from
>>>>> entries on the Electoral Roll, the right to vote, and votes
>>>>> made.

>>>>> I always vote, I've never registered as a member of any
>>>>> political party. Tactical voting is widespread in UK.

>>>>> https://tactical.vote/

>>>> Registering as a "party-supporter" in the US allows you to vote
>>>> in the primaries that determine who that party's candidate will
>>>> be;

>>> Yes, I know. I always perceived that as a bad practice. The
>>> French system of two round voting is much better.

>> Are the candidates in France or the Netherlands nominated by party
>> members, as they are in the British (and Canadian) system? In the
>> US, anyone can present themself as a candidate in the primaries,
>> and the registered voters choose which of them is to represent
>> their (pl) party.

> It makes no difference whether this "their" is plural, to mean all
> of them collectively, or singular, to mean each of them
> individually. That's why "their" is quite natural in "every"
> phrases.

Yes, "every" implies the plural; I wrote "any" which is not as clear in
its implications.

I meant to specify, not "their" meaning "of the candidate" but "their"
meaning "of the registered voters", who are not necessarily party
members in any other way.

* Peter Moylan:

> My final solution, by the way, was to supply a statutory declaration.
> That's a statement in my own words that I assert certain information to
> be true, countersigned by a Justice of the Peace to certify that I had
> indeed claimed what I said, and as a witness for my signature[1]. That's
> a document recognised by Australian law. I was slightly surprised that
> it was accepted in another country. I'm sure other countries have
> something similar in overall concept, but probably not in precise detail.

When I married someone from another country, I learned a new word:
apostille. This is an international version of notarization. My partner
had to get this from the German consulate in her country, who can be
expected to be familiar with official local documents.

It all went well - she arrived on Wednesday with her documents, we
presented them to city hall the same day and got married on Saturday.
Actually, not quite - when we went to city hall, we were told that she
needs to talk through an interpreter who isn't me, so we went and
organized one and came back later the same day. A feat of improvisation
in the pre-Internet days, but my ex was persistent that way.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostille_Convention>

--
I'm a character actor - which they call actors who are not gorgeous,
or young.
-- Saul Rubinek

On 5/2/2022 9:39 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> Sam Plusnet wrote:

>> If I chose to join (say) the Conservative party[1], I would pay
>> them £25 p/a and they would add me to the membership list which
>> they keep.

>> My membership of a party is of no concern to no-one else.

>> [1] It's a bargain, since the Labour party want £56.04 p/a to join
>> their club.

> If it's anything like Australia, the dominant right-wing party has
> less of a need to raise money from its members, because of massive
> corporate donations.

The dominant right-wing party here is the Conservative Party (variously
named: Conservative, Progressive Conservative, United Conservative
(Alberta), Liberal (BC), and Saskatchewan Party), and they are
remarkably good at wangling small donations from many ordinary people.

> As an extra factor, the Liberal Party here is pretty much owned by
> Rupert Murdoch, who has enormous power for telling people how they
> should vote.

I suppose he has very good security.

On 2022-04-29, Tony Cooper wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 08:45:39 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 13:36:11 +1000, Peter Moylan
>><peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On 29/04/22 12:59, Lewis wrote:
>>>> In message <t4febp$88q$1@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan
>>>> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 29/04/22 09:54, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Florida now has a bill - the "Parental Rights in Education" bill
>>>>>> - that should never have been drafted and should not have been
>>>>>> passed, and now many Florida schools will not be able to order
>>>>>> and receive math textbooks in time for the next school year.
>>>>
>>>>> Do those rights include the right to have one's children taught
>>>>> mathematics without political interference?
>>>>
>>>> Florida, like all GOP-controlled states, does not believe that anyone
>>>> is allowed to do anything without political interference except shoot
>>>> brown people.
>>>
>>>Australia, as you probably know, has compulsory voting, but exemptions
>>>are made for people with senile dementia or other forms of insanity.
>>>
>>>Florida gives me the impression that only the senile vote.
>>
>>
>>Some people would claim that only the senile live in Florida.
>
> I'd like to post a retort to that, but I forget what I was going to
> say.

That's the spirit!

> You can't spoil my mood today. Matron has promised to add a second
> cup of lime Jello to my lunch tray. I think it was Matron. It's some
> woman who keeps coming into my room.
>
>

--
Outside of the city limits the heart of darkness, the true wasteland
begins. --Ignatius J Reilly

On 2022-05-02, Tony Cooper wrote:

> On Mon, 02 May 2022 20:29:04 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>>
>>> * Tony Cooper:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 09:08:03 -0400, CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Registering as a "party-supporter" in the US allows you to vote in the
>>>>>primaries that determine who that party's candidate will be; it does not
>>>>>commit you to vote for the candidate. Tony has long been a registered
>>>>>Republican, but has said here that he has not voted for their candidate
>>>>>for a long time.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Correct. Not for a Republican candidate for state or federal office.
>>>>
>>>> I have voted for some Republican candidates for local (County)
>>>> offices. One in particular. The problem with supporting Democratic
>>>> candidates in any Florida election is that the state and county
>>>> Democratic party is so weak and ineffectual that no one with any
>>>> qualifications wants to run as a Democrat.
>>>
>>> An interesting aspect of politics here in Montreal is that the federal
>>> parties play no role at all in local elections. All seats on the council
>>> are held by local parties with names like "Projet Montreal". In Toronto,
>>> everyone seems to be (officially) Independent, but maybe others can shed
>>> light on how it really works.
>>
>>I like that idea. I sometimes think local government in the UK & the
>>USA would be better if affiliation with national parties were banned
>>(somehow).
>
> Oh, we have "non-partisan" elective offices at the local level.

Doesn't that depend on the size of the local level (e.g., small town
vs big city)?

> The candidates for those offices are not listed by party affiliation
> on the ballot or in their advertising.
>
> They rely, instead, on other means to communicate any political
> leanings. "Your Conservative choice", for example, is code for "If
> you want a Republican in this office, I'd be a good choice".
>
>

--
Well, in this world of basic stereotyping, give a guy a big nose and
some weird hair and he is capable of anything. ---Frank Zappa

On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:

> * Peter T. Daniels:
>
>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 1:54:16 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> On 02-May-22 14:08, CDB wrote:
>>
>>>> Registering as a "party-supporter" in the US allows you to vote in the
>>>> primaries that determine who that party's candidate will be; it does not
>>>> commit you to vote for the candidate. Tony has long been a registered
>>>> Republican, but has said here that he has not voted for their candidate
>>>> for a long time.
>>>
>>> I understand that is how it is done, but I still find it odd that a
>>> 'government' should have reason to keep a register of party affiliation.
>>
>> It's "the government" -- usually a county Board of Elections -- that
>> administers elections (subject to the supervision of, usually, the
>> state's Secretary of State). How could they do that if they didn't
>> know who was qualified to receive which party's ballot during the
>> voting in the primary?
>
> Which raises the question: Did Trump become president because a bunch of
> Democrats registered as Republicans in an attempt to sabotage the
> Republican Party by voting for the candidate they thought couldn't
> possibly win?
>
> In the American system, there's no good reason for the President to be
> affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German system, you
> elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head of government should
> be very much aligned with the party and its platform, or it's confusing.

That part of the American system is supposed to separate legislative &
executive powers from each other (unlike "prime minister" systems) as
well as from the judicial powers. (IIRC this comes from Montesquieu's
ideas in _L'Esprit des Lois_.)

--
"Gonzo, is that the contract from the devil?"
"No, Kermit, it's worse than that. This is the bill from special
effects."

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:40:24 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 1:54:16 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> >> On 02-May-22 14:08, CDB wrote:

> >>> Registering as a "party-supporter" in the US allows you to vote in the
> >>> primaries that determine who that party's candidate will be; it does not
> >>> commit you to vote for the candidate. Tony has long been a registered
> >>> Republican, but has said here that he has not voted for their candidate
> >>> for a long time.
> >> I understand that is how it is done, but I still find it odd that a
> >> 'government' should have reason to keep a register of party affiliation.
> > It's "the government" -- usually a county Board of Elections -- that
> > administers elections (subject to the supervision of, usually, the
> > state's Secretary of State). How could they do that if they didn't
> > know who was qualified to receive which party's ballot during the
> > voting in the primary?
>
> Which raises the question: Did Trump become president because a bunch of
> Democrats registered as Republicans in an attempt to sabotage the
> Republican Party by voting for the candidate they thought couldn't
> possibly win?

That would have required planning many months ahead to change
party registration, in many states. Consult the polls in the early-
primary states.

> In the American system, there's no good reason for the President to be
> affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German system, you
> elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head of government should
> be very much aligned with the party and its platform, or it's confusing.

The Founders saw how badly the parliamentary system was doing in
Britain in their day, so they came up with something far better -- three
separate branches, with "checks and balances." Their judgment was
only confirmed by the dismal performances of parliamentary systems
in the 20th and 21st centuries.

"Coalitions"???

On Tue, 3 May 2022 09:02:23 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 18:40:15 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>* Peter T. Daniels:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 1:54:16 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>> On 02-May-22 14:08, CDB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Registering as a "party-supporter" in the US allows you to vote in the
>>>>>> primaries that determine who that party's candidate will be; it does not
>>>>>> commit you to vote for the candidate. Tony has long been a registered
>>>>>> Republican, but has said here that he has not voted for their candidate
>>>>>> for a long time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that is how it is done, but I still find it odd that a
>>>>> 'government' should have reason to keep a register of party affiliation.
>>>>
>>>> It's "the government" -- usually a county Board of Elections -- that
>>>> administers elections (subject to the supervision of, usually, the
>>>> state's Secretary of State). How could they do that if they didn't
>>>> know who was qualified to receive which party's ballot during the
>>>> voting in the primary?
>>>
>>>Which raises the question: Did Trump become president because a bunch of
>>>Democrats registered as Republicans in an attempt to sabotage the
>>>Republican Party by voting for the candidate they thought couldn't
>>>possibly win?
>>>
>> That "spoiler" voting exists as a factor only in the Primary. The
>> intent is to have a non-electable candidate the nominee of the party.
>>
>> The 2016 GOP Primaries were basically a contest between Ted Cruz and
>> Donald Trump. If a candidate would have emerged from that contest as
>> a result of a spoiler vote, it would have been Marco Rubio or maybe
>> John Kasich. Neither would have been considered to have much of
>> chance against Hillary.
>>
>>>In the American system, there's no good reason for the President to be
>>>affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German system, you
>>>elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head of government should
>>>be very much aligned with the party and its platform, or it's confusing.
>>
>> That assumes that the party *has* a platform that the voters can
>> identify and agree with. In the US, the platform the voters identify
>> with is whatever the candidate declares to be his or her primary
>> objectives. After the election, the party aligns with the winning
>> candidate.
>
>I can't get behind that process at all. A presidential candidate will
>always in large part be elected based on personality rather than
>(announced) policies,

Trump was elected because of his personality?

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:53:19 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 02-May-22 23:40, Quinn C wrote:
> > * Peter T. Daniels:
> >
> >> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 1:54:16 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
> >>> I understand that is how it is done, but I still find it odd that a
> >>> 'government' should have reason to keep a register of party affiliation.
> >>
> >> It's "the government" -- usually a county Board of Elections -- that
> >> administers elections (subject to the supervision of, usually, the
> >> state's Secretary of State). How could they do that if they didn't
> >> know who was qualified to receive which party's ballot during the
> >> voting in the primary?
>
> In the UK, the local branch of a party chooses who their candidate
> should be.

We used to do it that way. I was home sick from school one day
in 1964 and the NYS Democratic Convention was on TV, and I
watched them nominate Robert F. Kennedy for US Senator from
New York. Eventually, the system was changed so that candidates
had to demonstrate their worth to voters during a campaign.

> The procedure the party uses to select that candidate is entirely up to
> them. I assume they will canvass the opinions of all the local party
> members, but they do whatever they think best.

By which you mean the handful who have paid the fee mentioned
yesterday?

As opposed to the voters overall?

> None of this is any concern of any government body.

Who administers an election? How do they know who is qualified
to vote and who isn't? How many candidates are allowed in any
one contest? Who decides that the Tinfoil Hats Against Aliens
Party probably shouldn't be on the ballot?

Over Here, they'd have had to gather N number of signatures
(N depending on the particular office).

On Tue, 3 May 2022 11:39:01 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 03/05/22 03:54, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>
>> If I chose to join (say) the Conservative party[1], I would pay them
>> £25 p/a and they would add me to the membership list which they
>> keep.
>>
>> My membership of a party is of no concern to no-one else.
>>
>> [1] It's a bargain, since the Labour party want £56.04 p/a to join
>> their club.
>
>If it's anything like Australia, the dominant right-wing party has less
>of a need to raise money from its members, because of massive corporate
>donations.
>
>As an extra factor, the Liberal Party here is pretty much owned by
>Rupert Murdoch, who has enormous power for telling people how they
>should vote.

I remember that back around 1978, when I spent a couple of days in
Zambia, and there was about to be a presidential election, the local
newspaper told everyone who they should vote for and what was going to
happen to them if they didn't.

On Tue, 03 May 2022 16:03:56 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

>On 2022-05-02, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 May 2022 20:29:04 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>>>
>>>> * Tony Cooper:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 09:08:03 -0400, CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Registering as a "party-supporter" in the US allows you to vote in the
>>>>>>primaries that determine who that party's candidate will be; it does not
>>>>>>commit you to vote for the candidate. Tony has long been a registered
>>>>>>Republican, but has said here that he has not voted for their candidate
>>>>>>for a long time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct. Not for a Republican candidate for state or federal office.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have voted for some Republican candidates for local (County)
>>>>> offices. One in particular. The problem with supporting Democratic
>>>>> candidates in any Florida election is that the state and county
>>>>> Democratic party is so weak and ineffectual that no one with any
>>>>> qualifications wants to run as a Democrat.
>>>>
>>>> An interesting aspect of politics here in Montreal is that the federal
>>>> parties play no role at all in local elections. All seats on the council
>>>> are held by local parties with names like "Projet Montreal". In Toronto,
>>>> everyone seems to be (officially) Independent, but maybe others can shed
>>>> light on how it really works.
>>>
>>>I like that idea. I sometimes think local government in the UK & the
>>>USA would be better if affiliation with national parties were banned
>>>(somehow).
>>
>> Oh, we have "non-partisan" elective offices at the local level.
>
>Doesn't that depend on the size of the local level (e.g., small town
>vs big city)?

I can't answer that. There are too many different situations across
te country to attempt to come to some conclusion.

In some counties, School Board members run as affiliated with a party,
and in some they run non-partisan. I don't think the population count
determines which, though.
>
>
>
>> The candidates for those offices are not listed by party affiliation
>> on the ballot or in their advertising.
>>
>> They rely, instead, on other means to communicate any political
>> leanings. "Your Conservative choice", for example, is code for "If
>> you want a Republican in this office, I'd be a good choice".
>>
>>
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Tue, 3 May 2022 08:29:06 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:53:19 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 02-May-22 23:40, Quinn C wrote:
>> > * Peter T. Daniels:
>> >
>> >> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 1:54:16 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>
>> >>> I understand that is how it is done, but I still find it odd that a
>> >>> 'government' should have reason to keep a register of party affiliation.
>> >>
>> >> It's "the government" -- usually a county Board of Elections -- that
>> >> administers elections (subject to the supervision of, usually, the
>> >> state's Secretary of State). How could they do that if they didn't
>> >> know who was qualified to receive which party's ballot during the
>> >> voting in the primary?
>>
>> In the UK, the local branch of a party chooses who their candidate
>> should be.
>
>We used to do it that way. I was home sick from school one day
>in 1964 and the NYS Democratic Convention was on TV, and I
>watched them nominate Robert F. Kennedy for US Senator from
>New York. Eventually, the system was changed so that candidates
>had to demonstrate their worth to voters during a campaign.
>
>> The procedure the party uses to select that candidate is entirely up to
>> them. I assume they will canvass the opinions of all the local party
>> members, but they do whatever they think best.
>
>By which you mean the handful who have paid the fee mentioned
>yesterday?
>
>As opposed to the voters overall?
>
>> None of this is any concern of any government body.
>
>Who administers an election? How do they know who is qualified
>to vote and who isn't? How many candidates are allowed in any
>one contest? Who decides that the Tinfoil Hats Against Aliens
>Party probably shouldn't be on the ballot?
>
>Over Here, they'd have had to gather N number of signatures
>(N depending on the particular office).

We would never allow the Tinfoil Hats Against Aliens Party to get a
candidate on the slate. In the US, a candidate from that party would
have to run as a Republican.

That's what the Jewish Space Lasers Party has done in Geogia.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On 5/3/2022 11:19 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Quinn C wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>> Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>> CDB wrote:
>
>>>>> Registering as a "party-supporter" in the US allows you to
>>>>> vote in the primaries that determine who that party's
>>>>> candidate will be; it does not commit you to vote for the
>>>>> candidate. Tony has long been a registered Republican, but
>>>>> has said here that he has not voted for their candidate for a
>>>>> long time.
>>>> I understand that is how it is done, but I still find it odd
>>>> that a 'government' should have reason to keep a register of
>>>> party affiliation.
>>> It's "the government" -- usually a county Board of Elections --
>>> that administers elections (subject to the supervision of,
>>> usually, the state's Secretary of State). How could they do that
>>> if they didn't know who was qualified to receive which party's
>>> ballot during the voting in the primary?

>> Which raises the question: Did Trump become president because a
>> bunch of Democrats registered as Republicans in an attempt to
>> sabotage the Republican Party by voting for the candidate they
>> thought couldn't possibly win?

> That would have required planning many months ahead to change party
> registration, in many states. Consult the polls in the early- primary
> states.

>> In the American system, there's no good reason for the President to
>> be affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German
>> system, you elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head of
>> government should be very much aligned with the party and its
>> platform, or it's confusing.

> The Founders saw how badly the parliamentary system was doing in
> Britain in their day, so they came up with something far better --
> three separate branches, with "checks and balances."

The modern parliamentary system could still be improved, but it works
well enough. The system your founders recoiled from is long gone.

It seems to me that any reasonable system of democratic government will
work well if its electorate is engaged and competent (rational,
public-spirited, and well-informed). That seems to be less the case
now, in all or most of our countries, than it was fifty years ago.

> Their judgment was only confirmed by the dismal performances of
> parliamentary systems in the 20th and 21st centuries.

You seem to have trumped their performance these days. And just wait
till 2024.

> "Coalitions"???