>On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>> 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.

Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
scribeva:
>That part of the American system is supposed to separate legislative &
>executive powers from each other (unlike "prime minister" systems)

Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime
minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).

In the Netherlands, the separation is not ideal, in that the
legislative powers are shared by parliament and government, because
the King is formally part of the government (but he doesn't have any
real power), and he has to sign any new laws (including laws that
stipulate how to amend or enhance existing laws).

>as
>well as from the judicial powers. (IIRC this comes from Montesquieu's
>ideas in _L'Esprit des Lois_.)

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
> >> 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.
> Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> scribeva:

Screwing with the attributions again (or still).

> >That part of the American system is supposed to separate legislative &
> >executive powers from each other (unlike "prime minister" systems)
>
> Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
> cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime
> minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).

How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?

> In the Netherlands, the separation is not ideal, in that the
> legislative powers are shared by parliament and government, because
> the King is formally part of the government (but he doesn't have any
> real power), and he has to sign any new laws (including laws that
> stipulate how to amend or enhance existing laws).
>
> >as
> >well as from the judicial powers. (IIRC this comes from Montesquieu's
> >ideas in _L'Esprit des Lois_.)

They were also very fond of Locke. Mattea would know.

On Tue, 03 May 2022 00:23:59 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

>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/

Interesting. Someone was actually putting money behind the
fake name.

I can remember a fake "Bob Casey" in Pa., where the initial had
to distinguish the candidates. I only recall it as an isolated bit
of mischief. But that sort of name-game is certainly not unique.

--
Rich Ulrich

On 03-May-22 16:26, Ken Blake wrote:
> 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?

He got the "I'm sick of politicians, they're all crooks." vote.

They elected a crook who didn't bother to fake it.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 2022-05-03, Tony Cooper wrote:

> 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.

Is that the organization that runs the Jewish Space Lasers or the one
that is trying to inform the benighted people about them?

--
Men, there is no sacrifice greater than someone else's.
---Skipper

On 03-May-22 17:01, Tony Cooper wrote:
> 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?

The electoral register for the constituency is maintained and updated
yearly by "electoral registration officers".
>>
>> Over Here, they'd have had to gather N number of signatures
>> (N depending on the particular office).

The Returning Officer for the constituency will receive nominations from
anyone who wishes to stand as a candidate.
Potential candidates need to supply a number of signatures supporting
their candidacy, and a cash deposit (£500).
Anyone who wishes to stand may do so - they just have to get the
signatures and stump up the cash.

The list of people qualified to stand is quite broad.

"To stand as a candidate in a UK Parliamentary General Election you need
to be at least 18 years old and:

a British citizen

a citizen of the Republic of Ireland

a citizen of a commonwealth country who does not require leave to enter
or remain in the UK, or has indefinite leave to remain in the UK"

Is far as I know, we don't have a "Tinfoil Hats Against Aliens" Party,
but they could be an offshoot of the Monster Raving Loony Party - who
have routinely put up candidates since 1983.
(Actually, the MRL party would be far too sensible to put up with idiots
like that.)

>
> 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.
>

--
Sam Plusnet

In article <dfeda865-f660-4e1c-af4a-83d42af1cf18n@googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > >On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
> > >> 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.
> > Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> > scribeva:

> Screwing with the attributions again (or still).

> > >That part of the American system is supposed to separate legislative &
> > >executive powers from each other (unlike "prime minister" systems)
> >
> > Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
> > cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime
> > minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).

> How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?

when they are members of the House of Lords.

> > In the Netherlands, the separation is not ideal, in that the
> > legislative powers are shared by parliament and government, because
> > the King is formally part of the government (but he doesn't have any
> > real power), and he has to sign any new laws (including laws that
> > stipulate how to amend or enhance existing laws).
> >
> > >as
> > >well as from the judicial powers. (IIRC this comes from Montesquieu's
> > >ideas in _L'Esprit des Lois_.)

> They were also very fond of Locke. Mattea would know.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 2022-05-03, Ruud Harmsen wrote:

>>On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
> scribeva:
>>That part of the American system is supposed to separate legislative &
>>executive powers from each other (unlike "prime minister" systems)
>
> Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
> cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime
> minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).

In PM-type systems AFAIK, the PM & other secretaries & ministers are
all members of the legislature & of the party (or coalition) that
"won" the legislature. That isn't separation!

> In the Netherlands, the separation is not ideal, in that the
> legislative powers are shared by parliament and government, because
> the King is formally part of the government (but he doesn't have any
> real power), and he has to sign any new laws (including laws that
> stipulate how to amend or enhance existing laws).
>
>>as
>>well as from the judicial powers. (IIRC this comes from Montesquieu's
>>ideas in _L'Esprit des Lois_.)
>

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

On 03-May-22 14:02, Quinn C wrote:
> * 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.

Heinlein in The Moon's a Harsh Mistress had everyone vote via their banks.
Those people today who trust their bank's security enough to bank
on-line, should also be happy enough to vote via the same route.

Yes, you still need a system to handle the (on-line) unbanked.

--
Sam Plusnet

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 2:59:36 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> In article <dfeda865-f660-4e1c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > >On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
> > > >> 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.
> > > Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> > > scribeva:
>
> > Screwing with the attributions again (or still).
>
> > > >That part of the American system is supposed to separate legislative &
> > > >executive powers from each other (unlike "prime minister" systems)
> > >
> > > Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
> > > cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime
> > > minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).
>
> > How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?
> when they are members of the House of Lords.

The Lords doesn't count as a House of Parliament?

The point remains. Our cabinet secretaries are (normally) chosen to be
experts in the relevant fields -- e.g. Obama's Energy Secretary was a
Nobel-laureate physicist -- and being constrained to just Members of
the Government (of the ruling party, no less) constrains the choice
unnecessarily,.

> > > In the Netherlands, the separation is not ideal, in that the
> > > legislative powers are shared by parliament and government, because
> > > the King is formally part of the government (but he doesn't have any
> > > real power), and he has to sign any new laws (including laws that
> > > stipulate how to amend or enhance existing laws).
> > > >as
> > > >well as from the judicial powers. (IIRC this comes from Montesquieu's
> > > >ideas in _L'Esprit des Lois_.)
>
> > They were also very fond of Locke. Mattea would know.

On Tue, 3 May 2022 14:24:21 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 2:59:36 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
>> In article <dfeda865-f660-4e1c...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> > > >On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>> > > >> 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.
>> > > Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>> > > scribeva:
>>
>> > Screwing with the attributions again (or still).
>>
>> > > >That part of the American system is supposed to separate legislative &
>> > > >executive powers from each other (unlike "prime minister" systems)
>> > >
>> > > Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
>> > > cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime
>> > > minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).
>>
>> > How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?
>> when they are members of the House of Lords.
>
>The Lords doesn't count as a House of Parliament?

You might find a clue in "MP".

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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

* Ken Blake:

> 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:
>>>
>>>>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?

Yes, I think so. It's not about finding his personality pleasant, but a
lot of people seem to have thought that it's right for the job.

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

* CDB:

> 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.

I'd expect that in discussions of their inner machinations, but where
they really get broad exposure, like in election results, I don't
remember seeing it.

> In
> English, the Conservatives are the CPC federally, the PCP
> ("Progressive") in many provinces, and the UCP ("United") in Alberta.
>
> Those are scare-quotes.

The Chinese have managed to have a capitalist communist party, so why
not a progressive conservative party as well?

--
Where we are, when we are ... nothing but lies told by the senses.
-- Trance Gemini

* Sam Plusnet:

> On 03-May-22 14:02, Quinn C wrote:
>> * 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.
>
> Heinlein in The Moon's a Harsh Mistress had everyone vote via their banks.
> Those people today who trust their bank's security enough to bank
> on-line, should also be happy enough to vote via the same route.

That doesn't make any sense unless the bank has a business interest in
doing a good job with the election. Their interest in keeping my
business is the incentive for doing a good job with my finances.

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

C.D. Bellemare:
> In English, the Conservatives are the CPC federally, the PCP
> ("Progressive") in many provinces, and the UCP ("United") in Alberta.

In my Canada, I have never encountered "PCP" as a political
abbreviation. The provincial Progressive Conservative Parties
are just "the Conservatives" or "the PCs", while the federal one
(no longer "Progressive") is just "the Conservatives", unless the
full names need to be spelled out.

It's different in Alberta, because the name there is different,
and I claim no expertise in French-language usage.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "But I want credit for all the words
msb@vex.net I spelled *right*!" -- BEETLE BAILEY

My text in this article is in the public domain.

On 03-May-22 23:08, Quinn C wrote:
> * Sam Plusnet:
>
>> On 03-May-22 14:02, Quinn C wrote:
>>> * 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.
>>
>> Heinlein in The Moon's a Harsh Mistress had everyone vote via their banks.
>> Those people today who trust their bank's security enough to bank
>> on-line, should also be happy enough to vote via the same route.
>
> That doesn't make any sense unless the bank has a business interest in
> doing a good job with the election. Their interest in keeping my
> business is the incentive for doing a good job with my finances.
>
The bank _does_ have an important interest in doing an accurate[1] job
of handling your money, since they are covered by extensive legislation
and they can suffer significant penalties if they don't succeed.
(OK. The detail will vary from country to country, but it is true in
practice.)

Once a customer has verified their identity, recording their vote would
be a modest task.

[1] Your bank could play fast and loose on the fees and charges it
chooses to apply, but it has to get the numbers right.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 04/05/22 01:29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> 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?

Answering that last part for Australia: nobody prevents the Tinfoil Hats
party from running. If they can't get enough votes they will lost their
deposit, but blocking any party from running would be seen as
anti-democratic.

Some of the crackpot (in my opinion) groups do get a significant number
of votes. In my electorate, in the current election, there are nine
candidates, of whom three (Greens, Labor Party, National Party) are what
I would call mainstream. Then we have the Animal Rights party, which I
suppose is on the borderline of mainstream. The Informed Medical
Opinions Party has anti-vaccination as its only policy. One Nation is an
anti-immigration party - and they want aboriginals to go back from where
they came from - gets enough votes to have a chance of winning in my
electorate. The United Australia Party, whose advertising budget is
greater than the some of the spending of all other parties, seems to
exist mainly to protect the business interests of its billionaire owner.

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

On 04/05/22 01:19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> 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.

I presume that the original concept included the idea that the judiciary
would be independent of the two political branches. There must have been
a time, then, when politicians were unable to influence appointments to
the highest court in the land. When did that go wrong?

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

On 04/05/22 01:29, Ken Blake wrote:
> 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.

Yes, that sounds like Murdoch.

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

On 04/05/22 09:34, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 03-May-22 23:08, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Sam Plusnet:

>>> Heinlein in The Moon's a Harsh Mistress had everyone vote via
>>> their banks. Those people today who trust their bank's security
>>> enough to bank on-line, should also be happy enough to vote via
>>> the same route.
>>
>> That doesn't make any sense unless the bank has a business interest
>> in doing a good job with the election. Their interest in keeping
>> my business is the incentive for doing a good job with my
>> finances.
>>
> The bank _does_ have an important interest in doing an accurate[1]
> job of handling your money, since they are covered by extensive
> legislation and they can suffer significant penalties if they don't
> succeed. (OK. The detail will vary from country to country, but it
> is true in practice.)
>
> Once a customer has verified their identity, recording their vote

and modifying it, if needed

> would be a modest task.

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

On Tuesday, Quinn C exclaimed wildly:
> * Ken Blake:
>
>> 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:
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>
> Yes, I think so. It's not about finding his personality pleasant, but a
> lot of people seem to have thought that it's right for the job.

Harding seems to have been elected because he /looked/ like a
President. And apparently being tall helps.

/dps

--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)

Watch this space, where Sam Plusnet advised that...
> On 03-May-22 17:01, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> 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?
>
> The electoral register for the constituency is maintained and updated yearly
> by "electoral registration officers".
>>>
>>> Over Here, they'd have had to gather N number of signatures
>>> (N depending on the particular office).
>
>
> The Returning Officer for the constituency will receive nominations from
> anyone who wishes to stand as a candidate.
> Potential candidates need to supply a number of signatures supporting their
> candidacy, and a cash deposit (£500).
> Anyone who wishes to stand may do so - they just have to get the signatures
> and stump up the cash.

That is in essence the situation in California. But the essence is
mixed in with quite a bit impurities: raising cash is easier if a
Party Organization is backing you, and while a lot of people could pony
up for the state fees, to have anything left over for getting your name
out quickly gets out of hand.

Caveat: the requirements for entry may be lower in the Primary
elections, and there may be additional requirements for certain offices
in the General elections ... like running for President seems to
require you be nominated by a party. ISTR an ad hoc party having a
nominating convention to put up what was essentially an independent
candidate.

> The list of people qualified to stand is quite broad.
>
> "To stand as a candidate in a UK Parliamentary General Election you need to
> be at least 18 years old and:
>
> a British citizen
>
> a citizen of the Republic of Ireland
>
> a citizen of a commonwealth country who does not require leave to enter or
> remain in the UK, or has indefinite leave to remain in the UK"
>
> Is far as I know, we don't have a "Tinfoil Hats Against Aliens" Party, but
> they could be an offshoot of the Monster Raving Loony Party - who have
> routinely put up candidates since 1983.
> (Actually, the MRL party would be far too sensible to put up with idiots like
> that.)
>
>>
>> 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.
>>

Well, some of the Republicans are pretty spacey.

/dps

--
Rule #0: Don't be on fire.
In case of fire, exit the building before tweeting about it.
(Sighting reported by Adam F)

Peter Moylan presented the following explanation :
> On 04/05/22 01:19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I presume that the original concept included the idea that the judiciary
> would be independent of the two political branches. There must have been
> a time, then, when politicians were unable to influence appointments to
> the highest court in the land. When did that go wrong?

There never was such a time. The President nominates, the Senate
confirms. But not every President manages to choose a lapdog.
Consider Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall.

What the Founding Fathers got really wrong, though, was the idea that
there wouldn't be political parties.

/dps

--
Let's celebrate Macaronesia

In article <53b24360-27e5-4cc3-8456-15e74585a7f7n@googlegroups.com>, Peter
T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 2:59:36 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> > In article <dfeda865-f660-4e1c...@googlegroups.com>, Peter T. Daniels
> > <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > > >On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
> > > > >> 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.
> > > > Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> > > > scribeva:
> >
> > > Screwing with the attributions again (or still).
> >
> > > > >That part of the American system is supposed to separate
> > > > >legislative & executive powers from each other (unlike "prime
> > > > >minister" systems)
> > > >
> > > > Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
> > > > cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime
> > > > minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).
> >
> > > How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?
> > when they are members of the House of Lords.

> The Lords doesn't count as a House of Parliament?

The House of Lords is the second tier of Parliamant - you have congress &
the Senate. The term "Member of Parliament" only applies to elected
members of the House of Commons.

> The point remains. Our cabinet secretaries are (normally) chosen to be
> experts in the relevant fields -- e.g. Obama's Energy Secretary was a
> Nobel-laureate physicist -- and being constrained to just Members of the
> Government (of the ruling party, no less) constrains the choice
> unnecessarily,.

How sensible.

> > > > In the Netherlands, the separation is not ideal, in that the
> > > > legislative powers are shared by parliament and government, because
> > > > the King is formally part of the government (but he doesn't have
> > > > any real power), and he has to sign any new laws (including laws
> > > > that stipulate how to amend or enhance existing laws).
> > > > >as well as from the judicial powers. (IIRC this comes from
> > > > >Montesquieu's ideas in _L'Esprit des Lois_.)
> >
> > > They were also very fond of Locke. Mattea would know.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <53b24360-27e5-4cc3-8456-15e74585a7f7n@googlegroups.com>,
grammatim@verizon.net says...
>
> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 2:59:36 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> > In article <dfeda865-f660-4e1c...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > > >On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
> > > > >> 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.
> > > > Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> > > > scribeva:
> >
> > > Screwing with the attributions again (or still).
> >
> > > > >That part of the American system is supposed to separate legislative &
> > > > >executive powers from each other (unlike "prime minister" systems)
> > > >
> > > > Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
> > > > cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime
> > > > minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).
> >
> > > How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?
> > when they are members of the House of Lords.
>
> The Lords doesn't count as a House of Parliament?

You asked about MP's. Members of the HOL are not titled or referred to
as MP's. Any who were previously MP's, lose that title when they join
the HOL.
Janet

> The point remains. Our cabinet secretaries are (normally) chosen to be
> experts in the relevant fields -- e.g. Obama's Energy Secretary was a
> Nobel-laureate physicist -- and being constrained to just Members of
> the Government (of the ruling party, no less) constrains the choice
> unnecessarily,.
>
> > > > In the Netherlands, the separation is not ideal, in that the
> > > > legislative powers are shared by parliament and government, because
> > > > the King is formally part of the government (but he doesn't have any
> > > > real power), and he has to sign any new laws (including laws that
> > > > stipulate how to amend or enhance existing laws).
> > > > >as
> > > > >well as from the judicial powers. (IIRC this comes from Montesquieu's
> > > > >ideas in _L'Esprit des Lois_.)
> >
> > > They were also very fond of Locke. Mattea would know.