The Splintering GOP Base

Damo, no matter how many times you repeat your stupidity, it wasn't proportional representation, and you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
 
Watermark said:
Damo, no matter how many times you repeat your stupidity, it wasn't proportional representation, and you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
LOL. I know it is embarrassing for you. I certainly remember this being one of the systems you promoted as being "more fair". It didn't work, even with a small number of voters. It was crap and was changed.

Proportional voting rather than representation is just as sucky, whichever type you use.
 
Damo, I can tell you that the method the founders first decided upon to choose the president is not the same method I have advocated in the past as a possible option to elect legislators to represent the people. They two subjects aren't even remotely related.

Maybe I'm not a good teacher? There's a concept here that's really not getting through to you. A lot of concepts.
 
Damocles said:
LOL. I know it is embarrassing for you. I certainly remember this being one of the systems you promoted as being "more fair". It didn't work, even with a small number of voters. It was crap and was changed.

Proportional voting rather than representation is just as sucky, whichever type you use.
Click to expand...

Damo, please tell me how it was proportional representation? Please? Just repeat it all, in an organized fashion. You will find either that you don't know what proportional representation is or you don't know how they first elected president. I assure you.
 
Watermark said:
Damo, I can tell you that the method the founders first decided upon to choose the president is not the same method I have advocated in the past as a possible option to elect legislators to represent the people. They two subjects aren't even remotely related.

Maybe I'm not a good teacher? There's a concept here that's really not getting through to you. A lot of concepts.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're just a dumbass.
 
Watermark said:
Damo, please tell me how it was proportional representation? Please? Just repeat it all, in an organized fashion. You will find either that you don't know what proportional representation is or you don't know how they first elected president. I assure you.
Click to expand...
I told you that it was not, it was proportional VOTING. Geez, at least read.

I said, that proportional VOTING sucked, while I would prefer a proportional representation.
 
Yeah, Damo. I really thought for a second there you were just trying to frustrate me and make fun of me for being so passionate about the subject in the past. LOL.

:clink:
 
Watermark said:
Proportional voting?

What do you mean?
Click to expand...
Well, if you count the votes proportionally, then you are proportionally voting. What part of the original system as well as your systems does not do this?

Your point was it would create a proportional representation based on who was viewed most favorable. All it would ever do is ensure the suckiest leaders were voted in.

At least with the old system, which was one that you had your little polls about back then, only the top two get anywhere.
 
Watermark said:
Yeah, Damo. I really thought for a second there you were just trying to frustrate me and make fun of me for being so passionate about the subject in the past. LOL.

:clink:
Click to expand...

Oh that is exactly what he does. He does it to me all of the time. He denies it afterwards, but think about it, how many misunderstandings could there possibly be? And, the more he pisses you off, the higher the post count goes. It's all pretty clear.
 
Damocles said:
Well, if you count the votes proportionally, then you are proportionally voting. What part of the original system as well as your systems does not do this?

Your point was it would create a proportional representation based on who was viewed most favorable. All it would ever do is ensure the suckiest leaders were voted in.

At least with the old system, which was one that you had your little polls about back then, only the top two get anywhere.
Click to expand...

What do you mean count votes proportionally?

All you do is count votes. That's about it.

Same with rated voting, which is the system I advocate. People just rate every candidate on whatever scale, you count the votes... whoever got the most wins.

Runoff voting is more complicated, but I don't understand how it's "voting proportionally"?
 
Darla said:
Oh that is exactly what he does. He does it to me all of the time. He denies it afterwards, but think about it, how many misunderstandings could there possibly be? And, the more he pisses you off, the higher the post count goes. It's all pretty clear.
Click to expand...

Does he say something to make you think something, and then go back in later and say "No, that's not what I was talking about at all! How could you possibly think that!", which leaves you dumbfounded as to what he's even talking about?
 
Watermark said:
Does he say something to make you think something, and then go back in later and say "No, that's not what I was talking about at all! How could you possibly think that!", which leaves you dumbfounded as to what he's even talking about?
Click to expand...

LOL Only every day! We've discussed this before on the board, you must not have been here. That's Damo's debating technique. It has the added benefit of infuriating people so they make more posts. That second part I just figured out recently, after I made about 10 posts in two minutes freaking out at him. And, lastly, he never really gets caught on any side of a debate. He always leaves himself wiggle room. "read my post again, that's not what I meant"

This is also why he makes a perfect third party voter. "It's not my fault, I didn't agree with either of them".

See? :)
 
Watermark said:
What do you mean count votes proportionally?

All you do is count votes. That's about it.

Same with rated voting, which is the system I advocate. People just rate every candidate on whatever scale, you count the votes... whoever got the most wins.

Runoff voting is more complicated, but I don't understand how it's "voting proportionally"?
Click to expand...
Forget it. The effect would not be proportional representation regardless of how the election is run when there is that few offices.

My point is, in all of your voting schemes, there was one factor that made them unpopular. They were unaccountably confusing as to who would win and still would not bring a proportional representation. The only thing that would do that would be a parliamentary system.
 
"Forget it. The effect would not be proportional representation regardless of how the election is run when there is that few offices."

You mean five member districts? It works in Ireland. The parties get almost the exact same amount of votes as they get seats. The only ones that don't are those that have like 5% of the vote, which is not the parties we necessarily want to represent anyway.

My point is, in all of your voting schemes, there was one factor that made them unpopular."

Rated voting was actually popular whenever someone brought it up. It's not meant to bring about proportional representation.

"My point is, in all of your voting schemes, there was one factor that made them unpopular."

They were far out, tediously described, and boring subjects?

"They were unaccountably confusing as to who would win and still would not bring a proportional representation."

Any system I stated would bring proportional representation would bring it in some form or another. Not all of the systems I described were necessarily proportional.



"The only thing that would do that would be a parliamentary system."

Damo, do you even know what a parliamentary system is?
 
Damocles said:
Forget it. The effect would not be proportional representation regardless of how the election is run when there is that few offices.

My point is, in all of your voting schemes, there was one factor that made them unpopular. They were unaccountably confusing as to who would win and still would not bring a proportional representation. The only thing that would do that would be a parliamentary system.
Click to expand...

Damo you didn't get mad at what I said did you?
 
"You mean five member districts? It works in Ireland. The parties get almost the exact same amount of votes as they get seats. The only ones that don't are those that have like 5% of the vote, which is not the parties we necessarily want to represent anyway."

No, I mean when you are voting for more than one person for one office you invariably wind up with somebody you really didn't want in there. Your type of proportional voting systems reeked and left you with a bad taste in your mouth.

Proportional representation like a parliamentary system is a different animal altogether.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top