[I] English Art Council phonecall
X Kyle M Thompson
questions, it wasn't an entirely undesired phonecall (like double glazing,
for instance) so I played along.
just asked me a few questions about artworks I may have bought (none) and
what I might buy (something cheap) and why I hadn't thus far (too
expensive). What my attitudes to art are. Nothing out of the ordinary, but 2
of the questions near the end took me by surprise...
OP: "Can I ask your current household income?"
ME: "you can ask, yes."
OP: "Ah, that means you don't want to tell me."
ME: "That's right."
OP: "How would you describe your ethnic origin?"
ME: "I wouldn't."
OP: "Ah."
I tell my financial advisor my income, because it's pertinent to stuff like
my mortgage, but I don't see how it's relevant to my enjoyment of art.
Also, ethnic origin? Now what's that got to do with it? He might as well
have asked me what religion I subscribe to, or my inside leg measurement.
Funny things these telephone surveys.[1]
kt.
[1] "How many telephones do you own?"
"Three"
"What type are they?"
"A 60's GPO rotary dial 'phone, a Swatch cordless
and a Nokia 7110"
Eric Jarvis
the surveys work as follows...they start from a basis of
having a demographic breakdown of the population by age,
income, ethnic origin etc...they then decide how that
should be reflected in the sample, so that the sample is
more representative than a totally random sample might
be...this allows them to use a sample in the thousands
rather than the tens of thousands, as would be required
if it was totally random
so by refusing to answer those questions you wasted all
the time spent up to that point since your answers will
almost certainly have to be discarded
normally they should ask those questions first so as to
waste less time
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"if a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing to excess"
Sanity
Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
[surveys asking for income and ethinicity]
> the surveys work as follows...they start from a basis of
> having a demographic breakdown of the population by age,
> income, ethnic origin etc...they then decide how that
> should be reflected in the sample, so that the sample is
> more representative than a totally random sample might
> be...this allows them to use a sample in the thousands
> rather than the tens of thousands, as would be required
> if it was totally random
>
> so by refusing to answer those questions you wasted all
> the time spent up to that point since your answers will
> almost certainly have to be discarded
>
> normally they should ask those questions first so as to
> waste less time
Normally they ask those questions last because they are private, and
people don't like being asked private questions. Especially not as the
first few. So generally, they are asked as the last few and the
surveyer knows why they're asked. Which is wot eric said, but also
because things like income (and related variables such as education,
housing situation, etc etc) influence things.
TTFN,
Michel AKA Sanity
--
"Sanity shall make ye -ing fret" Doing Affordable things to AFP:
www.affordable-prawns.co.uk www.affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk
AFP Chess Tournament: http://www.affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk/chess/
Lady Kayla
> Allegedly the "English Art Council" phoned me earlier [...]
> just asked me a few questions about artworks I may have bought
> (none) and
Wanna buy a picture? It's an original, honest (I know it is, cos I
painted it meself!), it might even be framed (some are, some aren't).
> what I might buy (something cheap)
I can do cheap (-ish, anyway) - I'm putting one or two paintings up
each week on eBay.
[...]
I want them to ring me! I want to try and sell them a painting or
two.
</gratuitous-plug>
--
Lady Kayla http://designs.ladykayla.org/
I'm not a fascist, I'm not that nice. I'm a parent.
Dom
...paintings...
>I can do cheap (-ish, anyway) - I'm putting one or two paintings up
>each week on eBay.
That should make the place look a bit cheerier;-)
IGMC
--
Dom
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> Normally they ask those questions last because they are private, and
> people don't like being asked private questions. Especially not as the
> first few. So generally, they are asked as the last few and the
> surveyer knows why they're asked. Which is wot eric said, but also
> because things like income (and related variables such as education,
> housing situation, etc etc) influence things.
I assume there must be a good reason why they can't be preceded by:
"Ah... we have to ask these questions to ensure we have a really
representative sample of UK population and avoid socio-economic bias,
you know..."
I have thought about this issue. The only kind of surveys I've had up to
now were commercial (a particuarly fun one was on brand recognition of
detergent stuff: "Which powder do you use for your washing machine?"
"I'm not sure, I'll have to take a look, wait..." "But you don't
remember the name?" "Nope." "Do you remember any name of detergents at
all?" "Errr... not right now, sorry." "Have you ever heard about Dash?"
"Oh sure." "Ajax?" "Yeah." "Others?" "Err... sorry, nothing comes up.")
and polls, especially near election times.
I have considered lying to these last. Well - there are several
different survey firms, and some of them are controlled by the Premier
and some of them are the ones the opposition relys on... and I thought,
just what important political function is achieved by this polls? I'm
not sure I want my country's, or my party's for that matter, policy to
be dictated by polls. Especially vote intentions - information that is
usually leaked and used to manipulate the outcome itself. And in some
cases, either they were conducted very sloppily or they were
manipulated. So I don't know - but a wide effort to lie to pollsters and
publicily declare so may be a good idea in some particular cases.
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan - ada...@despammed.com - this is a valid address
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
English blog: http://annafdd.blogspot.com/
Blog in italiano: http://fulminiesaette.blogspot.com
Lesley Weston
at ada...@spamcop.net wrote on 26/02/2003 1:28 AM:
<snip>
>The only kind of surveys I've had up to
> now were commercial
<snip>
> and polls, especially near election times.
>
>I'm
> not sure I want my country's, or my party's for that matter, policy to
> be dictated by polls.
But this is a much more democratic way to organise things - people not
directly involved in politics (the majority of people), but who are
inevitably affected by political decisions, get to influence those
decisions.
>Especially vote intentions - information that is
> usually leaked and used to manipulate the outcome itself.
I've never seen what's wrong with this. There's a case before the courts in
Canada right now. Canada is a vast country covering five time zones, so when
there is a general election the polls in the East are closed several hours
before those in the West, and the results of the Eastern polls are released
by Eastern media. There are laws preventing anyone from letting those in the
West know these results before the Western polls close, but of course,
no-one can control the Web. Someone is on trial for breaking these laws,
using his web-page.
I would think that knowing what other people want *should* influence
one's decision in a democracy, if one has not already decided which way to
vote. At any rate, people in the West should be trusted to behave sensibly,
rather then having their information censored.
Lesley Weston.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> >I'm
> > not sure I want my country's, or my party's for that matter, policy to
> > be dictated by polls.
>
> But this is a much more democratic way to organise things - people not
> directly involved in politics (the majority of people), but who are
> inevitably affected by political decisions, get to influence those
> decisions.
You see, this is used to win, not to rule. Let's find out what the
people are concerned about and focus on that, and if those are not the
real concerns, who cares? Example - despite the general trend of petty
criminality to decrease, polls dictated that the major preocupation of
Italian public was fear of the Immigrant Criminal. Rush by both sides of
the fence to show how strict and unforgiving they are with immigrants,
ending with the side that shrieked harder winning, and the industry of
the North-East being strangled by lack of workforce. And nobody left to
point out that the crime rate among immigrants is much lower than among
the general population.
The majority is not always right. Sometimes democracy means going
against the wishes of the majority - when it demands oppression of a
minority, for example.
> >Especially vote intentions - information that is
> > usually leaked and used to manipulate the outcome itself.
>
> I've never seen what's wrong with this. There's a case before the courts in
> Canada right now. Canada is a vast country covering five time zones, so when
> there is a general election the polls in the East are closed several hours
> before those in the West, and the results of the Eastern polls are released
> by Eastern media. There are laws preventing anyone from letting those in the
> West know these results before the Western polls close, but of course,
> no-one can control the Web. Someone is on trial for breaking these laws,
> using his web-page.
> I would think that knowing what other people want *should* influence
> one's decision in a democracy, if one has not already decided which way to
> vote. At any rate, people in the West should be trusted to behave sensibly,
> rather then having their information censored.
If you leak some data and not others, you have a measurable effect on
the outcome. For example, if you consistently let it be known that the
opposition has already lost, people will not go out to vote. There is
also an imitation effect: in Italy, enthusiastic polls about rate of
approbation have repeatedly been used to boost just such approbation.
Steve James
> Allegedly the "English Art Council" phoned me earlier asking me a few
> questions, it wasn't an entirely undesired phonecall (like double glazing,
> for instance) so I played along.
> just asked me a few questions about artworks I may have bought (none) and
> what I might buy (something cheap) and why I hadn't thus far (too
> expensive). What my attitudes to art are. Nothing out of the ordinary, but 2
> of the questions near the end took me by surprise...
> OP: "Can I ask your current household income?"
> ME: "you can ask, yes."
> OP: "Ah, that means you don't want to tell me."
> ME: "That's right."
> OP: "How would you describe your ethnic origin?"
> ME: "I wouldn't."
> OP: "Ah."
> I tell my financial advisor my income, because it's pertinent to stuff like
> my mortgage, but I don't see how it's relevant to my enjoyment of art.
>
> Also, ethnic origin? Now what's that got to do with it? He might as well
> have asked me what religion I subscribe to, or my inside leg measurement.
>
> Funny things these telephone surveys.[1]
>
and loft rooms. Most of my answers were - sorry all ready have, or not interested.
Then suddenly I was asked 'Do you believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?"
I said Yes, the odds are pretty high there is.
Then "Do you think the earth has been visited by aliens?"
I said "No"
Then the call ended - just like that. I wonder what would have happened if I had said Yes.
Steve (Steeljam) *BF DAcFD (UU) *
Resident Opsimath in Redivivus Studies
Clotilde
stee...@cix.co.uk (Steve James) wrote:
>In article <b3gqps$1mtfou$1...@ID-142568.news.dfncis.de>, ne...@buggrit.co.uk
(X Kyle M
>Thompson) wrote:
>Then "Do you think the earth has been visited by aliens?"
> I said "No"
>Then the call ended - just like that. I wonder what would have happened
if I had said
>Yes.
Certainly. You are all aliens to me.
-
-
Over the centuries, mankind has tried many ways of combating the forces of evil...prayer, fasting, good works and so on. Up until Doom, no one seemed to have thought about the double-barrel shotgun. Eat leaden death, demon...
-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
Thomas Zahr
news:BA8247BF.5DC4%les...@vancouverbc.net:
...
>
> But this is a much more democratic way to organise things -
> people not directly involved in politics (the majority of
> people), but who are inevitably affected by political
> decisions, get to influence those decisions.
I beg to differ, democracy ought to include a certain degree of deliberetion and
aforethought [1]. Polls take what people say, semi spontaneous <sp?>,
while they'd rather be somewhere else, do something else.
A poll is the lazy persons plebiscite. If it's direct democracy you're after, take the
Swiss model. [2].
I don't think democracy needs to mean that everybody needs to influence
everything.
>
>> Especially vote intentions - information that is
>> usually leaked and used to manipulate the outcome itself.
>
> I've never seen what's wrong with this. There's a case
> before the courts in Canada right now. Canada is a vast
> country covering five time zones, so when there is a
> general election the polls in the East are closed several
> hours before those in the West, and the results of the
> Eastern polls are released by Eastern media. There are laws
> preventing anyone from letting those in the West know these
> results before the Western polls close, but of course,
> no-one can control the Web. Someone is on trial for
> breaking these laws, using his web-page.
> I would think that knowing what other people want
> *should* influence
> one's decision in a democracy, if one has not already
> decided which way to vote. At any rate, people in the West
> should be trusted to behave sensibly, rather then having
> their information censored.
>
But don't the candidates have a right to fairness as well? [3]
[1] not necessarily malicious
[2] where sometimes only astonishingly (vanishingly?) small percentages
of the population go and vote
[3] Interesting problem to have, where I live we don't even manage to
fill one timezone but have to share it with other countries [4]
[4] Hey, at least one resource nobody is fighting over [5]
[5] and without treaties and armies as well
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
about 40 hours and counting
raymond larsson
> Canada is a vast country covering five time zones,
Seven, but everybody forgets about Newfoundland (and Labrador) and the
Yukon.
--
rgl
"Bother!" said Pooh. "I ache in the places where I used to play"
Lesley Weston
at ada...@spamcop.net wrote on 26/02/2003 10:47 AM:
> Lesley Weston <les...@vancouverbc.net> wrote:
>
>>> I'm
>>> not sure I want my country's, or my party's for that matter, policy to
>>> be dictated by polls.
>>
>> But this is a much more democratic way to organise things - people not
>> directly involved in politics (the majority of people), but who are
>> inevitably affected by political decisions, get to influence those
>> decisions.
>
> You see, this is used to win, not to rule. Let's find out what the
> people are concerned about and focus on that, and if those are not the
> real concerns, who cares?
OK, I didn't realise you meant that.
<snip>
>
> The majority is not always right.
No, indeed.
> Sometimes democracy means going
> against the wishes of the majority - when it demands oppression of a
> minority, for example.
In that case, it's no longer a democracy. Of course, true democracy has
never been tried, any more than true communism has.
>
>
>>> Especially vote intentions - information that is
>>> usually leaked and used to manipulate the outcome itself.
>>
>> I've never seen what's wrong with this. There's a case before the courts in
>> Canada right now. Canada is a vast country covering five time zones, so when
>> there is a general election the polls in the East are closed several hours
>> before those in the West, and the results of the Eastern polls are released
>> by Eastern media. There are laws preventing anyone from letting those in the
>> West know these results before the Western polls close, but of course,
>> no-one can control the Web. Someone is on trial for breaking these laws,
>> using his web-page.
>> I would think that knowing what other people want *should* influence
>> one's decision in a democracy, if one has not already decided which way to
>> vote. At any rate, people in the West should be trusted to behave sensibly,
>> rather then having their information censored.
>
> If you leak some data and not others, you have a measurable effect on
> the outcome.
He gave all the results. In this particular case, it really doesn't matter
either way. The government of Canada is elected by Ontario and Quebec - by
far the most densely-populated areas - so it's irrelevant how the rest of us
vote.
>For example, if you consistently let it be known that the
> opposition has already lost, people will not go out to vote.
If it's true, then why should they?
>There is
> also an imitation effect: in Italy, enthusiastic polls about rate of
> approbation have repeatedly been used to boost just such approbation.
There's nothing to stop the other side from having their own polls and
publishing the results.
Lesley Weston.
Lesley Weston
Thoma...@freenet.de wrote on 26/02/2003 2:39 PM:
> Lesley Weston <les...@vancouverbc.net> wrote in
> news:BA8247BF.5DC4%les...@vancouverbc.net:
>
> ...
<sip>
>
> I don't think democracy needs to mean that everybody needs to influence
> everything.
In practice, it doesn't mean that. But it should (IMO).
> But don't the candidates have a right to fairness as well? [3]
Revealing the earlier results doesn't make it unfair for the candidates. It
does give the people in the West a choice as to how to use information.
>
> [3] Interesting problem to have, where I live we don't even manage to
> fill one timezone but have to share it with other countries [4]
> [4] Hey, at least one resource nobody is fighting over [5]
> [5] and without treaties and armies as well
It's actually four and a half time zones; Newfoundland always has to be
different. Perhaps that's why all of Canada's best comedians come from
there.
Lesley Weston.
Lesley Weston
at ragl...@sk.sympatico.ca wrote on 26/02/2003 6:38 PM:
> In article <BA8247BF.5DC4%les...@vancouverbc.net>, Lesley Weston says...
>
>> Canada is a vast country covering five time zones,
>
> Seven, but everybody forgets about Newfoundland (and Labrador) and the
> Yukon.
The Yukon is in the Pacific zone. So with Newfoundland that makes five and a
half - we were both wrong, but it was Atlantic Canada I forgot, like the
Federal government.
Lesley Weston.
raymond larsson
When did they change from YST?
You move east one province for 20 yrs and they change everything.....
Lesley Weston
I checked a few sites, and the Yukon really does seem to be in the Pacific
zone. I don't know haw long it's been there, but we'd better keep an eye on
them - you don't know what they're going to change next. Still, at least
they're not changing county boundaries at random, as the Thatcher Thing did
in Britain.
Lesley Weston.
Maaike
<les...@vancouverbc.net> wrote:
<snip time zones>
>I checked a few sites, and the Yukon really does seem to be in the Pacific
>zone. I don't know haw long it's been there, but we'd better keep an eye on
>them - you don't know what they're going to change next. Still, at least
>they're not changing county boundaries at random, as the Thatcher Thing did
>in Britain.
Muhahahaa! They can't even do that here; we don't have no steenkin'
counties!
-Maaike (who was actually going to post to ask since when we've had
counties kicking around the country, but then remembered they've got
some in New Brunswick too. So it's probably just NF standing out.)
Daibhid Ceannaideach
>From: Eric Jarvis w...@ericjarvis.co.uk
>Date: 25/02/03 22:34 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <MPG.18c5ffcad...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
<mega snip>
>so by refusing to answer those questions you wasted all
>the time spent up to that point since your answers will
>almost certainly have to be discarded
>
>normally they should ask those questions first so as to
>waste less time
Indeed. I once spent half an hour on the phone to this guy, and we finished up
with "And you own your own home?"
"Er, no. It's my mum's house."
"Oh. Well, it's only supposed to be homeowners we're surveying. Is your mum
in?"
"No, sorry."
"Okay, sorry about that. Bye."
And, even with the apology, I got the definite impression that this was all
*my* fault for answering the phone while not being a homeowner.
--
Dave
Now Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc for three years
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"When Mister Safety Catch Is Not On, Mister Crossbow Is Not Your Friend."
-Advanced weapon training, Detritus style; Terry Pratchett, Night Watch
Martyn Clapham
<les...@vancouverbc.net> writes
[ snip time zone discussion ]
>I checked a few sites, and the Yukon really does seem to be in the Pacific
>zone. I don't know haw long it's been there, but we'd better keep an eye on
>them - you don't know what they're going to change next. Still, at least
>they're not changing county boundaries at random, as the Thatcher Thing did
>in Britain.
Er, believe it or not that's one thing she can't be blamed for.
The big boundary changes came in during 1974 ( looks like the Act was in
1972 ) and they've spent the last 30 years trying to sort out the damn
things! ( Humberside and Rutland spring to mind ).
Mart.
--
Sig will re-appear after I recover it.
6 years and counting!
Thomas Zahr
> in article Xns932F624DD9FAFT...@127.0.0.1,
> Thomas Zahr at Thoma...@freenet.de wrote on 26/02/2003
> 2:39 PM:
>
>> Lesley Weston <les...@vancouverbc.net> wrote in
>> news:BA8247BF.5DC4%les...@vancouverbc.net:
>>
>> ...
>
> <sip>
>>
>> I don't think democracy needs to mean that everybody needs
>> to influence everything.
>
> In practice, it doesn't mean that. But it should (IMO).
IIRC, historically democracy can be seen as an unbloody way to change the
participants in an oligarchy, hence the means tests to be able to vote. When the
number of voters got bigger, the possiblity to actually participate in decision
making declined, while the scope of the decision making is getting bigger and
bigger.
I've started to own up to the fact that in most cases, once I've had my knee jerk
reaction, I'm able to accept that I do not know enough to have an informed opinion
(FN: Informed being the operative word here, of course I'll always have an opinion!
#) and so should basically shut up.
Especially, since I've come to realise that the moral certainty I brought to my
opinions when I was a *lot* younger has grown frailer with the years, and for some
issues I can't see any moral dimension at all (FN: When should shops close for
instance. #)
>
>> But don't the candidates have a right to fairness as well?
>> [3]
>
> Revealing the earlier results doesn't make it unfair for
> the candidates. It does give the people in the West a
> choice as to how to use information.
>>
In Germany you can't, IIRC, even publish polls on the day. They try to stop any
possibility for unfair influences (FN: well, kind of understandable seeing how Hitler
managed to play the rules and the electorate #)
Anyway, the difference the later timezones have is probably quiet little, except in
close races.
Torak
> In message <BA84CFD5.5FA3%les...@vancouverbc.net>, Lesley Weston
> <les...@vancouverbc.net> writes
>
> [ snip time zone discussion ]
>
>> I checked a few sites, and the Yukon really does seem to be in the
>> Pacific zone. I don't know haw long it's been there, but we'd better
>> keep an eye on them - you don't know what they're going to change next.
>> Still, at least they're not changing county boundaries at random, as the
>> Thatcher Thing did in Britain.
>
> Er, believe it or not that's one thing she can't be blamed for.
I actually liked Thatcher, she did some good stuff as well. The Iranian
Embassy situation, for instance, couldn't have been better handled.
Brian Wakeling
What, you mean like basically saying "kill everybody", and the
attempts at diplomacy were only made to give the SAS time to set
up and storm the place?
Or are you admiring the hard-line stance that she adopted when
she decided to close the coal mines and introduce the Poll Tax
later in the decade, when protesters were basically ordered to be
beaten up?
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Remove .invalid to reply
Jenn Griffee
> I've never seen what's wrong with this. There's a case before the courts in
> Canada right now. Canada is a vast country covering five time zones, so when
> there is a general election the polls in the East are closed several hours
> before those in the West, and the results of the Eastern polls are released
> by Eastern media. There are laws preventing anyone from letting those in the
> West know these results before the Western polls close, but of course,
> no-one can control the Web. Someone is on trial for breaking these laws,
> using his web-page.
...whereas in the U.S., no one feels any similar compunctions, and
I've watched the news and fumed as presidential elections were called
before the polls even closed in my time zone (Pacific). Welcome to
the democracy where, thanks to the electoral college, an entire coast
can be written off. It's nights like that when I'm honestly not sure
why I bother voting (besides a possibly-misplaced sense of civic
responsibility, and the classic "I didn't vote for him; don't blame
me!") -- I've literally spoken to people who were planning to vote in
the evening, heard the results on the radio on the way there, and
skipped it in disgust. I can't even imagine how irritating it must be
for those out in Alaska or Hawaii.
I believe after the last election fiasco, some news organizations
changed their policies on how they'd report results, but it doesn't
change the fact that it's far from a perfect system.
Lesley Weston
You could well be right. I left Britain in 1974, and so had all my news
second-hand until the Web appeared. Whoever did it, it's still a Bad Thing.
Lesley Weston.
Lesley Weston
Thoma...@freenet.de wrote on 04/03/2003 1:35 AM:
<snip>
> I've started to own up to the fact that in most cases, once I've had my knee
> jerk
> reaction, I'm able to accept that I do not know enough to have an informed
> opinion
> (FN: Informed being the operative word here, of course I'll always have an
> opinion!
> #) and so should basically shut up.
But if all afpers followed that (excellent) rule, this froup would be far
less entertaining.
>
<snip>
> In Germany you can't, IIRC, even publish polls on the day. They try to stop
> any
> possibility for unfair influences (FN: well, kind of understandable seeing how
> Hitler
> managed to play the rules and the electorate #)
Yes, most people don't even know that Hitler was properly elected to power
in the beginning.
>
> Anyway, the difference the later timezones have is probably quiet little,
> except in
> close races.
That's true - most of Canada's population live in Ontario and Quebec, so how
people East and West of those provinces vote is pretty much irrelevant.
>
Lesley Weston.
BRIERLEYJON
< snip re county boundary changes and how it's the one thing we can't blame
Thatch for >
(Actually Grocer Heath did the first lot in '74, and Thatch the second set in
'86).
>You could well be right. I left Britain in 1974, and so had all my news
>second-hand until the Web appeared. Whoever did it, it's still a Bad Thing.
Certainly is.
Jon, Occupied Yorkshire
BRIERLEYJON
said unto us;
>Thoma...@freenet.de wrote on 04/03/2003 1:35 AM:
>> In Germany you can't, IIRC, even publish polls on the day. They try to stop
>> any
>> possibility for unfair influences (FN: well, kind of understandable seeing
>how
>> Hitler
>> managed to play the rules and the electorate #)
>Yes, most people don't even know that Hitler was properly elected to power
>in the beginning.
Um. Sort of. Bit unfair to blame democracy for Adolf. He was appointed
Chancellor after winning a lot of seats in the Reichstag, but was still part of
a coalition, being short of a majority. He then needed a two-thirds majority in
the house to suspend democracy and establish a dictatorship, but he only got it
by locking up or forcing into hiding all the communist and some of the
socialist deputies. Hardly in line with proper election, that. Even Dubya's got
a better claim to legitimacy.
Jon
Torak
> Torak <a.w.m...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I actually liked Thatcher, she did some good stuff as well.
>> The Iranian Embassy situation, for instance, couldn't have
>> been better handled.
>
> What, you mean like basically saying "kill everybody", and the
> attempts at diplomacy were only made to give the SAS time to set
> up and storm the place?
Yes, quite frankly. As it was, she came down on the terrorists like a ton of
bricks (ISTR hearing that she personally briefed the SAS team with the
phrase "Don't let any of the buggers out alive"), and we haven't had any
similarly high-profile situations since. At the risk of sounding callous,
the best way of preventing that sort of situations is making sure that
terrorists know that there is practically no chance of succeeding.
I know this'll start a flame war, so let's do everyone a favour and kill
this discussion now? ;-)
> Or are you admiring the hard-line stance that she adopted when
> she decided to close the coal mines and introduce the Poll Tax
> later in the decade, when protesters were basically ordered to be
> beaten up?
I wasn't commenting on that.
Lesley Weston
But he *was* elected in the first place, and became Chancellor legitimately.
"Vote for handsome Adolf!" (translation back to German, anyone?). It worked.
I don't see that this is an indictment of democracy in general, or even in
this case, just a warning that having a democracy in place can't guarantee
that it will continue.
Lesley Weston.
The Stainless Steel Cat
"Torak" <a.w.m...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
Yeah, I loved the way she swung through the window on that rope, chucking
stun grenades and all the while screaming, "Come and have a go if you think
you're hard enough!" Iron lady indeed.
;o)
Cat.
Torak
I thought she just walked in through the front door with her handbag. And we
know the end result, don't we. ;-)
John Aldis
wrote:
No, I think if you refer to Archer: The Truth, it was Geoffrey Archer who
defused the Iranian Embassy situation...
*G*
Great documentary, of course...
--
John Aldis, B.F.
Sarcasm is just one more service we offer.
SteveD
together and said:
>I've watched the news and fumed as presidential elections were called
>before the polls even closed in my time zone (Pacific). Welcome to
>the democracy where, thanks to the electoral college, an entire coast
>can be written off.
I'm surprised that multi-timezone places like the US don't just open all
polling places in all zones for the same absolute times, regardless of
what the local times are. Make sure to get the central time block (10am
to 4pm or thereabouts) for all local timezones, and extrapolate from
there.
Ideally, all polling places would be open for exactly 24 hours and all
open and close at the same absolute time, but there might be issues with
paying three or so shifts of pollbooth attendants etc.
With the USA covering eight timezones, you'd think someone would do
something. I guess it's just not perceived as important enough to spend
money on.
The whole electoral college thing really needs revising as well - when
was it first implemented?
That's the problem with voting systems. The party in office doesn't want
to change the method that they were the best at recently exploiting for
an unknown system, and parties not in office don't want to change it
because they're planning their next election campaign around it. There's
also something wrong with political systems that find stable points in
the form of the two-party model. For maximum flexibility, systems should
ideally be rigged so that having been elected previously is a slight
impediment to being re-elected. Not enough to ensure failure, but enough
so that you really do have to put some effort in to retain office, and
so that if government has switched back and forth between two parties
for a significant length of time, the chances of a third party being
able to step up to the plate gradually increase.
But hey, wishes and horses, y'know?
-SteveD
--
Most peoples' brains are, as Aristotle thought, just mechanisms for
cooling the blood. - Alec Cawley
Alec Cawley
> I'm surprised that multi-timezone places like the US don't just open all
> polling places in all zones for the same absolute times, regardless of
> what the local times are. Make sure to get the central time block (10am
> to 4pm or thereabouts) for all local timezones, and extrapolate from
> there.
States rights, In theory, each election is private to each state, and need
not be held even on the same day. Combines with the electoral college thing
(see below).
> The whole electoral college thing really needs revising as well - when
> was it first implemented?
The Constitutional Convention that produced the Bill of Rights - the first
?10? amendments.
It made sense in the technological situation of the time. Since travel was
very different between the states, you couldn't have a national race -
people from the south would never have heard of those from the north and
vice versa. So it made sense to choose a truusted local man to go to a
central convention, meet and talk to the candidates, talk to the candidates
fellow-citizens from his own state, and let them make a decision. The
invention of radio and television has, of course, completely destroyed this
reason - but the rules still apply.
And you need some way of blocking up the votes. If you had a single
nationwide vote, imagin the chaos if a nationwide recount were required. At
least the current system keeps the recount to the swing state, and then to
a few swing constituencies within that state.
> That's the problem with voting systems. The party in office doesn't want
> to change the method that they were the best at recently exploiting for
> an unknown system, and parties not in office don't want to change it
> because they're planning their next election campaign around it. There's
> also something wrong with political systems that find stable points in
> the form of the two-party model. For maximum flexibility, systems should
> ideally be rigged so that having been elected previously is a slight
> impediment to being re-elected. Not enough to ensure failure, but enough
> so that you really do have to put some effort in to retain office, and
> so that if government has switched back and forth between two parties
> for a significant length of time, the chances of a third party being
> able to step up to the plate gradually increase.
I don't agree with your wish for a default against the party in office.
Change has a cost. When a new party comes into office, they have a strong
motivation to stop any changes by their predecessors which have not reached
the point of no return, and substitute their own. Of course, in the worst
case, this is a cost that has to be accepted as the price of getting rid of
a bad goverment. But I would favour a minor prejudice in the favour of
continuity, though less than that which currently exists. This is actually
the rule in many governing bodies, including the Commons: in the face of a
dead heat, the Speaker, who does not normally vote, is required to hast
his/her vote for whatever is the "no change" option.
The two party system is the inevitable result of the first-past-the-post
system - not being a member of one of the two main parties means almost
certain electoral irrelevance. It is suprising the Lib(Dems) have lasted as
well as they have, though they sank very low in the sixties. If you want
anythign else, you need some more flexible voting system <cue endless
debate>.
--
@lec Šawley
From address is valid
Peter Ellis
>
>The two party system is the inevitable result of the first-past-the-post
>system - not being a member of one of the two main parties means almost
>certain electoral irrelevance.
To a point. Catastrophe theory comes in as well - occasionally a huge
shift happens and one of the former top two parties becomes a minor
party. There appears to me to be indications that this may happen
within the next few elections: but this may be pious hope.
>It is suprising the Lib(Dems) have lasted as
>well as they have, though they sank very low in the sixties.
Not really - FPTP keeps third parties disproportionately
underrepresented and out of power: it doesn't affect how many people
actually agree with their policies, which is what keeps them in
existence.
Besides, you're restricting yourself artificially to very recent years,
in the grand scale of things. Where do you think Labour came from?
They used to be a third party, and not very long ago. It used to be
Conservative/Liberal alternation all the way, right back to when they
were actually called Tory/Whig.
>
>If you want
>anythign else, you need some more flexible voting system <cue endless
>debate>.
Agreed.
Peter
Brian Wakeling
SteveD <cy...@thelanddownunder.com> wrote:
> gri...@halcyon.com (Jenn Griffee) meticulously glued three
> electrons together and said:
>
>> I've watched the news and fumed as presidential elections
>> were called before the polls even closed in my time zone
>> (Pacific). Welcome to the democracy where, thanks to the
>> electoral college, an entire coast can be written off.
>
> I'm surprised that multi-timezone places like the US don't
> just open all polling places in all zones for the same
> absolute times, regardless of what the local times are. Make
> sure to get the central time block (10am to 4pm or
> thereabouts) for all local timezones, and extrapolate from
> there.
>
> Ideally, all polling places would be open for exactly 24 hours
> and all open and close at the same absolute time, but there
> might be issues with paying three or so shifts of pollbooth
> attendants etc.
>
> With the USA covering eight timezones, you'd think someone
> would do something. I guess it's just not perceived as
> important enough to spend money on.
A miscellaneous fact that seems to be related but not entirely
relevant here would be a little snippet of information about the
Russian railway system: They all run on Moscow time. Hence, when
boarding the Trans-Siberian Express in Vladivostok, passengers
are told that breakfast will be served at 1am.
HAND
Lesley Weston
pj...@cam.ac.uk wrote on 08/03/2003 4:04 AM:
> nos...@spamspam.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> The two party system is the inevitable result of the first-past-the-post
>> system - not being a member of one of the two main parties means almost
>> certain electoral irrelevance.
>
> To a point. Catastrophe theory comes in as well - occasionally a huge
> shift happens and one of the former top two parties becomes a minor
> party. There appears to me to be indications that this may happen
> within the next few elections: but this may be pious hope.
>
That's what happened in the last B.C. (Canada) election. The former
opposition took all but two of the seats. The former ruling party, who had
had a comfortable majority, have been gallantly trying to do their job with
just two people. One of these is now on maternity leave, so the remaining
one, the Leader of the Opposition, now speaks in a sort of croak whenever
she's interviewed. She used to have a light, rather musical voice. She might
just as well save her voice - it really doesn't matter whether she debates
in the House or not, as we are now effectively living under a malevolent
dictatorship [1] with no hope of relief for many years - it takes time to
build up a party to the point where it can contest an election.
[1] Run by a drunk, but that's another story.
Lesley Weston.
Alec Cawley
I didn't say always the same two parties. As you say, occasionally
turbulence occurs ant one of the parties is overthrown. But the steady
state with an FPTP system is that at >95% of all elections, only two
parties could possibly form the government/council/whatever. The ordinary
voter who is not a supporter of one of these two parties therefore has the
choice of registering what is essentially only a symbolic protest vote, or
voting for the least-bad of the two possible ruling parties. This makes
voting (for those not committed to the major parties) essentially a
negative system, voting to keep the worst out, rather than a positive
system, voting for someone you really want. Which does not make for
interested participation.
--
@lec ©awley
From address is valid
Mick Molloy
Why does Canada use a first past the post system? Surely, in a country as
diverse and large, PR of some kind would be more representative?
Mick
Lesley Weston
Yes, PR would always be closer to true democracy. The situation I described
is in British Columbia, one province of Canada, [1], but B.C. by itself is
large and diverse enough to be ill-represented by the current electoral
system.
[1] There's a relatively small island off the coast of B.C., Vancouver
Island, that is larger than the whole of the British Isles, and B.C. is just
one province of 10 plus two territories and the Yukon. However, Canada's
total population is a little over 30 million.
Lesley Weston.
Andrew Hickey
"John Aldis" <Jo...@HyperMactive.com> wrote in message
news:BA8CE7D...@10.1.8.162...
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2003 12:46 am, Torak <mailto:a.w.m...@durham.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> >The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:
> >> Yeah, I loved the way she swung through the window on that rope,
> chucking
> >> stun grenades and all the while screaming, "Come and have a go if you
> >> think you're hard enough!" Iron lady indeed.
>
> No, I think if you refer to Archer: The Truth, it was Geoffrey Archer who
> defused the Iranian Embassy situation...
ITYM Jeffrey Archer. There's also a Geoffrey Archer who's an equally bad
writer but has not had any pernicious effect on public life...
Mike Stevens
> The two party system is the inevitable result of the
> first-past-the-post system - not being a member of one of the two
> main parties means almost certain electoral irrelevance. It is
> suprising the Lib(Dems) have lasted as well as they have, though they
> sank very low in the sixties. If you want anythign else, you need
> some more flexible voting system.
And yet the two-party system has really only dominated UK politics since
WW2. Before then the concept of "party" was much more flexible, so that
one had all sorts of interesting situations [1], such as the 1931
Parliament, with its "National" Government, which had a Labour Prime
Minister leading a largely Conservative cabinet, totally dependent on
the support of Conservative MPs, with the Labour Party officially in
opposition and the Liberals divided on both sides of the House. Back
around the turn of the 20th Century, Lord Randolph Churchill (IIRC)
announced he was going to form a third political party. A Labour Party
member pointed out that it would actually be the fourth party, and
somebody describing himself as from the "Irish Party" said it would be
the fifth.
Even longer ago, way before the birth of the Labour Party, the split on
the Tories over the Corn Laws led to a period of effectively three-party
politics.
And some of the founders of the Labour Party (perhaps I'm thinking of
the Webbs?) saw the purpose of their party not as being an alternative
Government, but as a pressure group which would work *inside* both the
Liberal and Tory Parties for the interests of the working class.
[1] Even excluding war-time coalitions.
--
Mike Stevens, the Old Farts' old fart
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
No man is an island. So is Man.
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Seriously, I don't know enough about the Iranian Embassy seige to decide if
"charge in, all guns blazing, and the de'il tak' the hindmost" was the best
solution or not. What I do know is that it was Maggie's solution to
*everything*, so it was bound to work eventually[1].
If I say nothing but the word "penguin", then eventually someone will ask me
"What do you call those black and white birds that live in the Antartic?" And
I'll say "penguin", and be right. But since I'd have given the same answer if
asked "What do you call those vivid red birds that live in the Brazillian
rainforest", this hardly justifies my long term policy.
(I decide to be serious, and I start wittering about penguins. Sad, really...)
[1] Actually it "worked" quite often. Usually when those being charged *at*
were the Great British Public. The trouble with asking "did her policies
work?", is that first you have to ask "what were her policies trying to
achieve?" If you work on the basis that the answer to question 2 is not "a fair
and just society", then the answer to question 1 may well be "yes".
--
Dave
Now Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc for FOUR years
"It'd be a great joke, to let Blair go on about moral imperatives and then say
'And have you heard the US have withdrawn their backing?'" -Jeremy Hardy, The
News Quiz 7/3/03
Thomas Zahr
...
>> Why does Canada use a first past the post
>> system? Surely, in a country as diverse and large, PR of
>> some kind would be more representative?
>>
>
> Yes, PR would always be closer to true democracy. The
> situation I described is in British Columbia, one province
> of Canada, [1], but B.C. by itself is large and diverse
> enough to be ill-represented by the current electoral
> system.
>
A dozen parties in Parliament can be a problem too, look at Italy since WWII and
Germany between the wars.
CCA
>I decide to be serious, and I start wittering about penguins. Sad, really...
Pretty normal for afp though:-)
CCA:)
Alec Cawley
> A dozen parties in Parliament can be a problem too, look at Italy since
> WWII and Germany between the wars.
I believe that part of Italy's problem is that they have a secret ballot
*inside* parliamant, so that an MP can promise to each of serveral
potential leaders his undying support (in return, of course, for posts in
the resulting government) in the knowledge that teh only ones wh can be
sure he lied are those who have lost by miles.
Apart from this side effect, I think it is wrong that you representative can
conceal from you, the voter, the way he has used the power you gave him.
Your vote is, of course, secret. But whay your representative does with it
whoudl be known to you - and hence, pracically, to the world.
As for the Wiemar government, was this really too many parties, or just
wealkness and indecision?
Jeremy Stark
Weston Thing <les...@vancouverbc.net> wrote:
> Still, at least
> they're not changing county boundaries at random, as the Thatcher Thing did
> in Britain.
Never let the facts get in the way of a story?
Or an insult.
--
Jeremy
Jeremy Stark
"Torak" <a.w.m...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> As it was, [Thatcher] she came down on the terrorists like a ton of
> bricks (ISTR hearing that she personally briefed the SAS team with the
> phrase "Don't let any of the buggers out alive"),
Actually along the lines of "We don't want a continuing problem", which
[one of] the SAS took to mean "no survivors", but could just have well
have meant "no escapes".
> I know this'll start a flame war, so let's do everyone a favour and kill
> this discussion now? ;-)
Oops, sorry.
--
Jeremy
Thomas Zahr
news:3e7650bc....@news.demon.co.uk:
> Things could be interesting here in Scotland after the
> elections in May - it looks as if six parties will be
> represented in Parliament, and if Labour's vote continues
> to decline, negotiations as to who forms the government
> could be interesting :-)
>
You'll certainly get more colour into the debate (if that's the word), and the
coalition contracts will contain fairly bizzare promises.
Thomas Zahr
news:29096750....@aleccawley.com:
> Thomas Zahr wrote:
>
>> A dozen parties in Parliament can be a problem too, look
>> at Italy since WWII and Germany between the wars.
>
> I believe that part of Italy's problem is that they have a
> secret ballot *inside* parliamant, so that an MP can
> promise to each of serveral potential leaders his undying
> support (in return, of course, for posts in the resulting
> government) in the knowledge that teh only ones wh can be
> sure he lied are those who have lost by miles.
>
> Apart from this side effect, I think it is wrong that you
> representative can conceal from you, the voter, the way he
> has used the power you gave him. Your vote is, of course,
> secret. But whay your representative does with it whoudl be
> known to you - and hence, pracically, to the world.
No argument there
>
> As for the Wiemar government, was this really too many
> parties, or just wealkness and indecision?
>
IIRC there were up to 20 parties in parliament. Frequent elections because no party
could muster enough votes on their own. Coalitions broke apart as soon as the going
got tough, which of course it did, Black Monday, massive unemployment, hyper
inflation, with a loaf of bread going for 10.000.000.000 Reichsmark.
Anyway, today a political party needs 5% or two direct mandates [1], to
get into parliament. This was put in expressively to make sure that
the Weimar situation could not be repeated.
HTH
[1] theres only one state parliament, Schleswig Holstein, were the
Danish Minority will always be represented, independent of the
percentage of the vote. If a party gets one direct mandate, that
person sits as an independent.
Lesley Weston
We did that one already.
Lesley Weston.
Len Oil
> I've never seen what's wrong with this. There's a case before the courts
in
> Canada right now. Canada is a vast country covering five time zones, so
when
> there is a general election the polls in the East are closed several
hours
> before those in the West, and the results of the Eastern polls are
released
> by Eastern media. There are laws preventing anyone from letting those in
the
> West know these results before the Western polls close, but of course,
> no-one can control the Web. Someone is on trial for breaking these laws,
> using his web-page.
Surely the way to handle this is to count, verify and sign-off the results
in the East, as usual, but keep not to release any final results until the
West closes as well and the count starts there (or starts to end if they do
a rolling count... excuse me, but I'm not overly familiar with the system
in .ca), thus not affecting those votes/voters/results. Obviously some
people need to know, a significant number of officials and the like, no
doubt, but a vastly smaller number than "entire population of Eastern
zones, plus national and international news organisations". (Same
penalties for leaking would apply, of course, perhaps more severe if you
considered the reduced number of people in correspondingly greater
positions of trust.)
But please don't think I plan to reshape another country's electoral system
(even one with the same monarch), and you can also make your own satirical
comments up without my help... :)
--
AFP Code 2.0: AC$/>M-UK d@(--) s:+>- a- UP+ R+++ F++ h- P3x= OSD+:-- ?C M--
L pp--- I->** W+ c@ B+ Cn::::+ CC- PT+>+++ Pu* 5+>++ X-- MT++ eV+(++-) r*
y+ end
Lesley Weston
len...@lenoil.demon.co.uk wrote on 15/03/2003 4:36 PM:
> "Lesley Weston" <les...@vancouverbc.net> wrote:
>> I've never seen what's wrong with this. There's a case before the courts
> in
>> Canada right now. Canada is a vast country covering five time zones, so
> when
>> there is a general election the polls in the East are closed several
> hours
>> before those in the West, and the results of the Eastern polls are
> released
>> by Eastern media. There are laws preventing anyone from letting those in
> the
>> West know these results before the Western polls close, but of course,
>> no-one can control the Web. Someone is on trial for breaking these laws,
>> using his web-page.
>
> Surely the way to handle this is to count, verify and sign-off the results
> in the East, as usual, but keep not to release any final results until the
> West closes as well and the count starts there
Of course it is, if it's necessary at all to withhold information from
anybody. But this is too obvious a solution - we're talking about
governments here.
>
> But please don't think I plan to reshape another country's electoral system
> (even one with the same monarch),
Somebody should!
> and you can also make your own satirical
> comments up without my help... :)
Thank you. One does one's best.
Lesley Weston.
Alec Cawley
> in article b51e3r$2n6$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk, Len Oil at
> len...@lenoil.demon.co.uk wrote on 15/03/2003 4:36 PM:
>
>> "Lesley Weston" <les...@vancouverbc.net> wrote:
>>> I've never seen what's wrong with this. There's a case before the courts
>> in
>>> Canada right now. Canada is a vast country covering five time zones, so
>> when
>>> there is a general election the polls in the East are closed several
>> hours
>>> before those in the West, and the results of the Eastern polls are
>> released
>>> by Eastern media. There are laws preventing anyone from letting those in
>> the
>>> West know these results before the Western polls close, but of course,
>>> no-one can control the Web. Someone is on trial for breaking these laws,
>>> using his web-page.
>>
>> Surely the way to handle this is to count, verify and sign-off the
>> results in the East, as usual, but keep not to release any final results
>> until the West closes as well and the count starts there
>
> Of course it is, if it's necessary at all to withhold information from
> anybody. But this is too obvious a solution - we're talking about
> governments here.
Particularly, you have to stop Ther Media taking ad-hoc exit pools (less
accurate than any count, and more subject to bias) and publishing them.
Reconciling this with Free Speech strikes me as a problem.