Building Better Nations 2.10

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Dave Volek

unread,
Sep 1, 2002, 12:00:36 PM9/1/02
to
A Bad TGS can not be Thrown Out

The purpose of Building Better Nations is to show a better
system of governance. If the TGS creates governments that
need to be thrown out, then I should not have bothered
writing this book! In essence, I need to prove that the TGS
is very unlikely to produce a bad government in order to
properly address this objection. Let’s go back to the 12
limitations described in the first chapter and see how the
TGS resolves them.

Limitation #1: Political parties create a very exclusive
club!

All citizens are eligible for election. Joining a party,
building a campaign machine, and compromising one’s
principles are no longer a prerequisite to be elected in a
TGS.

Limitation #2: Political parties are not think-tanks!

A TGS will not have the day-to-day political intrigue that
pervades political parties and which decision makers cannot
afford to ignore. Unhampered by intrigue, TGS
representatives can put more thought into their
deliberations and consultations, thus making better
thought-out decisions.

Limitation #3: The political process is not a screening
process!

If elected citizens do not have good character and capacity
for governance, they will not remain elected, nor will they
rise up the tiers.

Limitation #4: Political parties are mostly marketing
machines!

A well financed, clever marketing message will never get
anyone elected in a TGS.

Limitation #5: Simplistic explanation of the problem and
solution!

TGS representatives can delve into the real reasons, which
are usually not simple, for society’s problems. They can
explore solutions previously unattainable because of the
western democratic model’s need to make complicated problems
seem simple.

Limitation #6: Elected officials spend too much time on
politics!

Most elected TGS representatives will know that if they do a
good job, they will likely remain elected. Hence they will
not be engaging in activities mostly designed to keep a
party elected and instead devote most of their time towards
governance.

Limitation #7: Political parties cannot harmonize the issues
facing society!

TGS representatives will be looking at each societal issue
from many more angles—and will better see the
interconnectedness of these issues. Much better
harmonization is likely than with the western democratic
model.

Limitation #8: Political parties cannot plan for the future!

Without needing to cater to a political party focussed on
survival and domination on election day, TGS representatives
can look further into the future. Their ability to
concentrate to the future means fewer bad decisions for
political expediency will be the norm. With fewer bad
decisions that would have needed fixing, TGS representatives
of the future have more available resources to tackle their
societal problems—and with these extra resources, they can
do a better job. In other words, better planning for the
future will create resources and prosperity for future
generations we can not see today.
Limitation #9: Political parties are beholden to those who
feed the marketing machine!

TGS representatives get their position in the TGS because
they are of good character and have a capacity for
governance. They owe favours to no wealthy interest or any
demographic group! Nor can citizens perceive the
representatives as owing favours. Therefore any decision
coming from the TGS has the credibility of being a decision
for the benefit of all society, not influenced for the
betterment of a few.

Limitation #10: Political parties are incapable of dealing
with internal corruption!

The one-year term in the TGS ensures representatives who do
not conduct themselves worthy of their position cannot “ride
out a storm” or hide behind a party banner to stay elected.
There is no need for other representatives to protect such
an individual for the sake of party unity.

Limitation #11: The adversarial nature of politics!

TGS representatives will not be splitting themselves on
partisan lines, thus removing one unnecessary feature that
creates adversity and disharmony in governance, and
ultimately leads to limited decisions. In the TGS, the
representatives will be working together to resolve the
issues of their society, not compete for power and
influence.

Limitations # 12: Inability to shape society!

The good character and capacity for governance of TGS
representatives will garner respect from the citizenry at
large. Many citizens will now have role-models in governance
to better their own characters and abilities.

I have briefly described how the TGS will transcend the
limitations described in the first chapter. I now challenge
each reader to ask: “How can bad government happen if the
TGS removes the limitations of the western democratic
model?”

Dave Volek
Author
Building Better Nations
-------------------------------------------------------
Voice your opinion at Mediard, the Internet Newsmagazine
where everyone can be a reporter. Go to www.mediard.com
-------------------------------------------------------

tonycook

unread,
Sep 1, 2002, 4:57:05 PM9/1/02
to

"Dave Volek" <vo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:EQqc9.1573$P6.1...@news2.telusplanet.net...

> A Bad TGS can not be Thrown Out

I disagree.
Any bad system of government can be thrown out.
History is pock-marked with revolutions.

> The purpose of Building Better Nations is to show a better
> system of governance.

This claim needs to be defined.
So far - it is just a judgemental call by you.
That's ok - but what do *you* call "better".
You have to realise it will differ from many other
people's ideas of "better".

> If the TGS creates governments that
> need to be thrown out, then I should not have bothered
> writing this book!

Any system of government is still dependent on the
people within that system.
Systems in themselves can give better facilities/opportunities
but not necessarily better governance.

> In essence, I need to prove that the TGS
> is very unlikely to produce a bad government in order to
> properly address this objection.

IMO you can not possibly prove such a thing.
So long as human beings are involved *any* system
can be abused.
I claim that Superdemocracy would be the most difficult
to abuse but still not impossible.

> Let’s go back to the 12
> limitations described in the first chapter and see how the
> TGS resolves them.
>
> Limitation #1: Political parties create a very exclusive
> club!

I see nothing wrong with this - so long as there is
a Superdemocratic voting system to counteract
exclusive club abusive influences.
I seriously doubt TGS has this capability at all.

> All citizens are eligible for election. Joining a party,
> building a campaign machine, and compromising one’s
> principles are no longer a prerequisite to be elected in a
> TGS.

Being elected is not the problem.
It's the decision making process thereafter.

> Limitation #2: Political parties are not think-tanks!

No - but they can organise such things.
Political parties are leaders/initiators.

> A TGS will not have the day-to-day political intrigue that
> pervades political parties and which decision makers cannot
> afford to ignore. Unhampered by intrigue, TGS
> representatives can put more thought into their
> deliberations and consultations, thus making better
> thought-out decisions.

This is just wishful thinking.
Also there is a complete absence of ascertaining whether
the so called better decisions are democratically better/acceptable.
It seems you have decided (dictatorially) that this doesn't matter -
and I believe it does.

> Limitation #3: The political process is not a screening
> process!

Don't know what you mean by this.
This seems to be so judgemental it's impossiuble to comment.

> If elected citizens do not have good character

In whose judgement?

> and capacity for governance,

In whose judgement?

> they will not remain elected, nor will they
> rise up the tiers.

By whose judgement?

> Limitation #4: Political parties are mostly marketing
> machines!

Because the current incentives for the retention of power
make it necessary.
Superdemocracy changes those incentives -
whereas TGS does not.

> A well financed, clever marketing message will never get
> anyone elected in a TGS.

More wishful thinking.
Unless you ban public communication altogether this will
always be part of the political picture.
Superdemocracy *controls* this aspect by democratically
accepted limits.
TGS doesn't.

> Limitation #5: Simplistic explanation of the problem and
> solution!
>
> TGS representatives can delve into the real reasons, which
> are usually not simple, for society’s problems. They can
> explore solutions previously unattainable because of the
> western democratic model’s need to make complicated problems
> seem simple.

I'm not totally sold on the repeated efforts to sell complexity.
Most of life's problems are in fact just simple common sense.
It's people who're determined to *make* everything complicated
that proliferate these quite unecessary influences.
Complexity does exist however in specific areas of technical and
scientific enterprise etc. - and certainly experts are needed to explain
and make sense of complicated concepts to the rest of us.
Superdemocracy does not limit this approach/requirement in any way.

> Limitation #6: Elected officials spend too much time on
> politics!

It seems that's what they're being paid for to do.
Too much time is judgemental though.
By what standards and in whose opinion?

> Most elected TGS representatives will know that if they do a
> good job, they will likely remain elected.

Current politicians endure the same conditions.
Nothing new here.

> Hence they will
> not be engaging in activities mostly designed to keep a
> party elected and instead devote most of their time towards
> governance.

Unfortunately any elected dictatorship is consumed by this
incentive for survival.
Superdemocracy removes it.
Governments only have to govern in accordance with the
majority consensus - and they would be very hard to fall
foul of public acceptance.
TGS does not seem to change anything from current criteria.

> Limitation #7: Political parties cannot harmonize the issues
> facing society!

Harmonisation with what?
Harmonisation by whose judgement?
Another very wishful claim.

> TGS representatives will be looking at each societal issue
> from many more angles—and will better see the
> interconnectedness of these issues. Much better
> harmonization is likely than with the western democratic
> model.

Why would TGS representatives see anything any better?
There doesn't appear to be any indication or proof of this.
Better for who?
The whole TGS system is so judgemental by those within it
there deosn't appear to be much democracy involved at all.
Superdemocracy *always* provides for democratic
judgements across the entire electorate *not* just those of
a few.

> Limitation #8: Political parties cannot plan for the future!

Superdemocracy is streets ahead here.
The televote system can be used for future planning by conducting
all manner of televote surveys cheaply and easily.
It even allows for 12 year olds up - to vote on youth matters.
Incidentally every voter has his/her census profile in the televote database
so that extrapolation of all manner of different stats can easily be
obtained.

> Without needing to cater to a political party focussed on
> survival and domination on election day, TGS representatives
> can look further into the future. Their ability to
> concentrate to the future means fewer bad decisions for
> political expediency will be the norm. With fewer bad
> decisions that would have needed fixing, TGS representatives
> of the future have more available resources to tackle their
> societal problems—and with these extra resources, they can
> do a better job. In other words, better planning for the
> future will create resources and prosperity for future
> generations we can not see today.

> Limitation #9: Political parties are beholden to those who
> feed the marketing machine!

Superdemocracy defeats this by changing the incentive from
the dollar to the vote.

> TGS representatives get their position in the TGS because
> they are of good character and have a capacity for
> governance. They owe favours to no wealthy interest or any
> demographic group! Nor can citizens perceive the
> representatives as owing favours. Therefore any decision
> coming from the TGS has the credibility of being a decision
> for the benefit of all society, not influenced for the
> betterment of a few.

I have no confidence whatever in this wishful thinking claim.

> Limitation #10: Political parties are incapable of dealing
> with internal corruption!

Where-ever there's no incentive the problem will remain.
Too much power in too few hands always tends to corrupt.
Conversely - more democracy and less dictatorship produces
the opposite effect.
Superdemocracy is such a system and TGS is not.

> The one-year term in the TGS ensures representatives who do
> not conduct themselves worthy of their position cannot “ride
> out a storm” or hide behind a party banner to stay elected.
> There is no need for other representatives to protect such
> an individual for the sake of party unity.

You hope.

> Limitation #11: The adversarial nature of politics!
>
> TGS representatives will not be splitting themselves on
> partisan lines, thus removing one unnecessary feature that
> creates adversity and disharmony in governance, and
> ultimately leads to limited decisions. In the TGS, the
> representatives will be working together to resolve the
> issues of their society, not compete for power and
> influence.

Politics is often a matter of compromise.
It's not possible to please all the people all the time.
But such compromise should be democratically decided.
Superdemocracy offers this at all times.
TGS does not.

> Limitations # 12: Inability to shape society!

The shape of society is up to society - not a handful of politicians.
Superdemocracy provides such a tool.
TGS does not.

> The good character and capacity for governance of TGS
> representatives will garner respect from the citizenry at
> large. Many citizens will now have role-models in governance
> to better their own characters and abilities.

More wishful thinking and more judgemental calls.
Good character? By whose standards? Yours?

> I have briefly described how the TGS will transcend the
> limitations described in the first chapter. I now challenge
> each reader to ask: “How can bad government happen if the
> TGS removes the limitations of the western democratic
> model?”

But it hasn't.
It has certainly generated a whole new batch of idealistic
results/claims that depend entirely on judgemental conditions
that don't seem to have any democratic basis at all.

Sorry Dave - but TGS is still just another elected dictatorship
and therefore *can't* be expected to perform any better than
current political systems.
The reason is that *better* can *only* be decided by the democratic
majority - and your TGS system doesn't cater for this.

TC

R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 12:06:09 AM9/2/02
to
In message <aku25t$dkp$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
<tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>Most of life's problems are in fact just simple common sense.

Pick an issue, Tony. Let's see how simple it is.

Stumpy.
--
R.G. "Stumpy" Marsh Timaru, New Zealand
<http://marsh.orcon.net.nz/>

Dave Volek

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 12:24:15 AM9/2/02
to
A Bad TGS can not be Thrown Out

The purpose of Building Better Nations is to show a better
system of governance. If the TGS creates governments that


need to be thrown out, then I should not have bothered

writing this book! In essence, I need to prove that the TGS


is very unlikely to produce a bad government in order to

properly address this objection. Let’s go back to the 12


limitations described in the first chapter and see how the
TGS resolves them.

Limitation #1: Political parties create a very exclusive
club!

All citizens are eligible for election. Joining a party,
building a campaign machine, and compromising one’s
principles are no longer a prerequisite to be elected in a
TGS.

Limitation #2: Political parties are not think-tanks!

A TGS will not have the day-to-day political intrigue that
pervades political parties and which decision makers cannot
afford to ignore. Unhampered by intrigue, TGS
representatives can put more thought into their
deliberations and consultations, thus making better
thought-out decisions.

Limitation #3: The political process is not a screening
process!

If elected citizens do not have good character and capacity
for governance, they will not remain elected, nor will they
rise up the tiers.


Limitation #4: Political parties are mostly marketing
machines!

A well financed, clever marketing message will never get
anyone elected in a TGS.

Limitation #5: Simplistic explanation of the problem and
solution!
TGS representatives can delve into the real reasons, which
are usually not simple, for society’s problems. They can
explore solutions previously unattainable because of the
western democratic model’s need to make complicated problems
seem simple.

Limitation #6: Elected officials spend too much time on
politics!

Most elected TGS representatives will know that if they do a

good job, they will likely remain elected. Hence they will


not be engaging in activities mostly designed to keep a
party elected and instead devote most of their time towards
governance.

Limitation #7: Political parties cannot harmonize the issues
facing society!

TGS representatives will be looking at each societal issue
from many more angles—and will better see the
interconnectedness of these issues. Much better
harmonization is likely than with the western democratic
model.

Limitation #8: Political parties cannot plan for the future!

Without needing to cater to a political party focussed on
survival and domination on election day, TGS representatives
can look further into the future. Their ability to
concentrate to the future means fewer bad decisions for
political expediency will be the norm. With fewer bad
decisions that would have needed fixing, TGS representatives
of the future have more available resources to tackle their
societal problems—and with these extra resources, they can
do a better job. In other words, better planning for the
future will create resources and prosperity for future
generations we can not see today.
Limitation #9: Political parties are beholden to those who
feed the marketing machine!

TGS representatives get their position in the TGS because
they are of good character and have a capacity for
governance. They owe favours to no wealthy interest or any
demographic group! Nor can citizens perceive the
representatives as owing favours. Therefore any decision
coming from the TGS has the credibility of being a decision
for the benefit of all society, not influenced for the
betterment of a few.

Limitation #10: Political parties are incapable of dealing
with internal corruption!

The one-year term in the TGS ensures representatives who do
not conduct themselves worthy of their position cannot “ride
out a storm” or hide behind a party banner to stay elected.
There is no need for other representatives to protect such
an individual for the sake of party unity.

Limitation #11: The adversarial nature of politics!
TGS representatives will not be splitting themselves on
partisan lines, thus removing one unnecessary feature that
creates adversity and disharmony in governance, and
ultimately leads to limited decisions. In the TGS, the
representatives will be working together to resolve the
issues of their society, not compete for power and
influence.

Limitations # 12: Inability to shape society!

The good character and capacity for governance of TGS
representatives will garner respect from the citizenry at
large. Many citizens will now have role-models in governance
to better their own characters and abilities.

I have briefly described how the TGS will transcend the

tonycook

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 4:27:32 PM9/2/02
to

"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4io5nu4it4o30to3q...@news.xtra.co.nz...

> In message <aku25t$dkp$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
> <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >Most of life's problems are in fact just simple common sense.
>
> Pick an issue, Tony. Let's see how simple it is.

OK.
"Should the drinking age be reverted to age 20yrs?"


TC

R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 9:54:15 PM9/3/02
to
In message <al0his$e0r$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
<tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

Contributing issues:

What are the perceived problems with the current age?
Are they real problems?
Do they correlate with the lowered drinking age?
Is there a causal link, or is it coincidence?
Are they significant enough to warrant raising the age again?
Age of majority and rights of adulthood.
Personal liberties.
Impact on liquor trade.
Impact on allied trades.
Impact on road toll.
Impact on physical health.
Impact on mental health.
Direct and indirect impacts on justice system.
Social impacts, both among those affected and wider society.
Prohibition effects.
Is access really easier for young people, or does it just look that
way because they aren't hiding any more?
Is access really easier for young people because of the drinking age?
Is access easier for young people because of supermarket sales?
Is access easier for young people because of Sunday trading?
Should we be considering other ages (16?, 25?)?
Political acceptability.
Consistency with other drugs.
Can the goals be achieved another way?
Education?
Stiffer penalties for underage supply?
More robust ID procedures?
More resources for enforcement?
Greater restriction of outlets?
Greater restriction of hours?
"Restricted license" for drinking?

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure it barely scratches the
surface. Now you may say that some of those are going a bit too far
and over-complicating the issue, but there's a fair few there that are
very important, which you would probably have ignored.

QED.

Dave Volek

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 11:01:08 PM9/3/02
to

tonycook wrote in message ...
|

|
|This claim needs to be defined.
|So far - it is just a judgemental call by you.
|That's ok - but what do *you* call "better".
|You have to realise it will differ from many other
|people's ideas of "better".


Agreed. If a majority eventually agree with me that a TGS
would be a better system of goverance, however they wish to
define "better," than it should be OK to undergo this
experiment.


|
|> If the TGS creates governments that
|> need to be thrown out, then I should not have bothered
|> writing this book!
|
|Any system of government is still dependent on the
|people within that system.
|Systems in themselves can give better
facilities/opportunities
|but not necessarily better governance.


Agreed.

|
|> In essence, I need to prove that the TGS
|> is very unlikely to produce a bad government in order to
|> properly address this objection.
|
|IMO you can not possibly prove such a thing.
|So long as human beings are involved *any* system
|can be abused.
|I claim that Superdemocracy would be the most difficult
|to abuse but still not impossible.


Still difficult to disprove. Perhaps you should study some
examples of how referenda were abused in California before
you make this statement. Televoting has also proven to be
susceptible to hackers and fraud.


snip


|
|Being elected is not the problem.
|It's the decision making process thereafter.


If we can't hold politicians accountable to their own
campaign promises, then how can we hold them to referenda
results--if law by referenda does not take precendence over
laws created in legislatures.

|
|> Limitation #2: Political parties are not think-tanks!
|
|No - but they can organise such things.
|Political parties are leaders/initiators.
|
|

|This is just wishful thinking.
|Also there is a complete absence of ascertaining whether
|the so called better decisions are democratically
better/acceptable.
|It seems you have decided (dictatorially) that this doesn't
matter -
|and I believe it does.


Makes no sense to me!

|
|> Limitation #3: The political process is not a screening
|> process!
|
|Don't know what you mean by this.
|This seems to be so judgemental it's impossiuble to
comment.
|


Just as a first-hand example, I saw an alcoholic become
elected as a party candidate and later become a Member of
Parliament. He spent five years on a barstool in Ottawa with
a pretty good salary. Where was the screening process?

|> If elected citizens do not have good character
|
|In whose judgement?


By those voting for the representative

|
|> and capacity for governance,
|
|In whose judgement?


By those voting

|
|> they will not remain elected, nor will they
|> rise up the tiers.
|
|By whose judgement?


By those voting

|
|> Limitation #4: Political parties are mostly marketing
|> machines!
|
|Because the current incentives for the retention of power
|make it necessary.
|Superdemocracy changes those incentives -
|whereas TGS does not.
|


Makes no sense to me.

|> A well financed, clever marketing message will never get
|> anyone elected in a TGS.
|

|More wishful thinking.
|Unless you ban public communication altogether this will
|always be part of the political picture.
|Superdemocracy *controls* this aspect by democratically
|accepted limits.
|TGS doesn't.


Because the electoral districts are much smaller, the voters
will better know the people they wish to vote for.

|
|> Limitation #5: Simplistic explanation of the problem and
|> solution!
|>
|> TGS representatives can delve into the real reasons,
which
|> are usually not simple, for society’s problems. They can
|> explore solutions previously unattainable because of the
|> western democratic model’s need to make complicated
problems
|> seem simple.
|
|I'm not totally sold on the repeated efforts to sell
complexity.
|Most of life's problems are in fact just simple common
sense.
|It's people who're determined to *make* everything
complicated
|that proliferate these quite unecessary influences.
|Complexity does exist however in specific areas of
technical and
|scientific enterprise etc. - and certainly experts are
needed to explain
|and make sense of complicated concepts to the rest of us.
|Superdemocracy does not limit this approach/requirement in
any way.


It seems to me you have had very little experience in public
policy. Besides, if an issue were simple, we would all come
to the same conclusion.


|
|> Limitation #6: Elected officials spend too much time on
|> politics!
|
|It seems that's what they're being paid for to do.
|Too much time is judgemental though.
|By what standards and in whose opinion?
|


You need to reread Chapter 1 to get the full meaning.

|> Most elected TGS representatives will know that if they
do a
|> good job, they will likely remain elected.
|
|Current politicians endure the same conditions.
|Nothing new here.


Really! In Canada, we have a government that has been in
power too long and done too many corrupt things. But polls
give them 64% in a five-party race. It seems they are being
judged by the ineffectiveness of the opposition parties.


|
|> Hence they will
|> not be engaging in activities mostly designed to keep a
|> party elected and instead devote most of their time
towards
|> governance.
|
|Unfortunately any elected dictatorship is consumed by this
|incentive for survival.
|Superdemocracy removes it.
|Governments only have to govern in accordance with the
|majority consensus - and they would be very hard to fall
|foul of public acceptance.
|TGS does not seem to change anything from current criteria.


Keep saying, "we are governed by an elected dictatorship."
But can you prove this?


|
|> Limitation #7: Political parties cannot harmonize the
issues
|> facing society!
|
|Harmonisation with what?
|Harmonisation by whose judgement?
|Another very wishful claim.
|

Read Chapter 1.

|> TGS representatives will be looking at each societal
issue
|> from many more angles—and will better see the
|> interconnectedness of these issues. Much better
|> harmonization is likely than with the western democratic
|> model.
|
|Why would TGS representatives see anything any better?
|There doesn't appear to be any indication or proof of this.
|Better for who?
|The whole TGS system is so judgemental by those within it
|there deosn't appear to be much democracy involved at all.
|Superdemocracy *always* provides for democratic
|judgements across the entire electorate *not* just those of
|a few.


More platitudes.

|
|> Limitation #8: Political parties cannot plan for the
future!
|
|Superdemocracy is streets ahead here.
|The televote system can be used for future planning by
conducting
|all manner of televote surveys cheaply and easily.
|It even allows for 12 year olds up - to vote on youth
matters.
|Incidentally every voter has his/her census profile in the
televote database
|so that extrapolation of all manner of different stats can
easily be
|obtained.
|

So how can Superdemocracy plan for the Future?


|> Limitation #9: Political parties are beholden to those
who
|> feed the marketing machine!
|
|Superdemocracy defeats this by changing the incentive from
|the dollar to the vote.
|


Both sides of most referenda in the U.S. are backed by big
$$$$$$.


|
|> Limitation #10: Political parties are incapable of
dealing
|> with internal corruption!
|
|Where-ever there's no incentive the problem will remain.
|Too much power in too few hands always tends to corrupt.
|Conversely - more democracy and less dictatorship produces
|the opposite effect.
|Superdemocracy is such a system and TGS is not.


Platitudes, platitudes.

|
|> The one-year term in the TGS ensures representatives who
do
|> not conduct themselves worthy of their position cannot
“ride
|> out a storm” or hide behind a party banner to stay
elected.
|> There is no need for other representatives to protect
such
|> an individual for the sake of party unity.
|
|You hope.
|

There will be no political parties in the TGS. If you read
Chapter 1, you will know that I have identified problems
with governance by political parties--and we cannot expect
the parties to transcend these limitations. If we don't want
these problems, we have to think of a system without
parties. A TGS is one such system. It seems Superdemocracy
still has parties.


|> Limitation #11: The adversarial nature of politics!
|>
|> TGS representatives will not be splitting themselves on
|> partisan lines, thus removing one unnecessary feature
that
|> creates adversity and disharmony in governance, and
|> ultimately leads to limited decisions. In the TGS, the
|> representatives will be working together to resolve the
|> issues of their society, not compete for power and
|> influence.
|
|Politics is often a matter of compromise.
|It's not possible to please all the people all the time.
|But such compromise should be democratically decided.


True.

|Superdemocracy offers this at all times.
|TGS does not.


Platitudes.

|
|> Limitations # 12: Inability to shape society!
|
|The shape of society is up to society - not a handful of
politicians.
|Superdemocracy provides such a tool.
|TGS does not.
|
|> The good character and capacity for governance of TGS
|> representatives will garner respect from the citizenry at
|> large. Many citizens will now have role-models in
governance
|> to better their own characters and abilities.
|
|More wishful thinking and more judgemental calls.
|Good character? By whose standards? Yours?


Yes, by mine. I will vote for someone who I think has good
standards. Is there something wrong with this?


|> I have briefly described how the TGS will transcend the
|> limitations described in the first chapter. I now
challenge
|> each reader to ask: “How can bad government happen if the
|> TGS removes the limitations of the western democratic
|> model?”
|
|But it hasn't.
|It has certainly generated a whole new batch of idealistic
|results/claims that depend entirely on judgemental
conditions
|that don't seem to have any democratic basis at all.


If someone calls me undemocratic, I guess that is all
someone else needs to call me undemocratic.

|
|Sorry Dave - but TGS is still just another elected
dictatorship
|and therefore *can't* be expected to perform any better
than
|current political systems.
|The reason is that *better* can *only* be decided by the
democratic
|majority - and your TGS system doesn't cater for this.
|


If the definition of an elected dictatorship (which has yet
to be defined in this thread) is a system that is unlikely
to produce results agreeable to people like Tony Cook, then
I guess the TGS is an elected dictatorship.

Another often espoused platitude has been "the majority."
While the majority's wishes are an important part of a
democratic society, it is not the only thing that makes a
democracy work. But then again, if we live in a simple world
. . .

Dave Volek


tonycook

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 10:25:50 PM9/3/02
to

"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:lbganuk4ugd3t02k7...@news.xtra.co.nz...

I accept all your considerations,
but I can't see anything complicated yet.
Everything is very clearly stated and understandable.
Is that it?

Numerous issues often involve many matters to consider.
But that's not complication.
Complication occurs when many matters conflict,
are not clear, are extremely technical, or are badly recorded
or badly researched.
It's not easy to make sound decisions under these circumstances.

With the above issue it's just a matter of considering if
the current legislation provides an overall improvement
to society or not.
Other considerations are not really a priority at all.

Anyone can *make* an issue complicated.
The trick is to cut to the essence of it and not be sidetracked
by a million other relatively unimportant influences.

TC


tonycook

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 1:08:59 AM9/4/02
to

"Dave Volek" <vo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:UHed9.12460$q6.5...@news0.telusplanet.net...

>
> tonycook wrote in message ...
> |
> |This claim needs to be defined.
> |So far - it is just a judgemental call by you.
> |That's ok - but what do *you* call "better".
> |You have to realise it will differ from many other
> |people's ideas of "better".
>
> Agreed. If a majority eventually agree with me that a TGS
> would be a better system of goverance, however they wish to
> define "better," than it should be OK to undergo this
> experiment.

You don't seem to quite understand that there are as many
interpretations of "better" as there are voters - and those
interpretations alter practically every hour as well.
In other words it's a constantly shifting criteria.
You speak of it as if it were a constant of some sort.
Agreed to or not it's still a constantly shifting criteria and
therefore not really possible to build a system around it.

> |> If the TGS creates governments that
> |> need to be thrown out, then I should not have bothered
> |> writing this book!
> |
> |Any system of government is still dependent on the
> |people within that system.
> |Systems in themselves can give better
> facilities/opportunities
> |but not necessarily better governance.
>
> Agreed.
>
> |> In essence, I need to prove that the TGS
> |> is very unlikely to produce a bad government in order to
> |> properly address this objection.
> |
> |IMO you can not possibly prove such a thing.
> |So long as human beings are involved *any* system
> |can be abused.
> |I claim that Superdemocracy would be the most difficult
> |to abuse but still not impossible.
>
> Still difficult to disprove. Perhaps you should study some
> examples of how referenda were abused in California before
> you make this statement. Televoting has also proven to be
> susceptible to hackers and fraud.

LOL.
Once again a different system.
The NZ system is failsafe in this regard.
We have a classified system that is unbreakable/unhackable.
A prize of $100,000 will be constantly offered to anyone who can
hack into it - with no prosecution.

(snipped)


> |> Limitation #2: Political parties are not think-tanks!
> |
> |No - but they can organise such things.
> |Political parties are leaders/initiators.
> |
> |This is just wishful thinking.

It's backed by the fact that our goverments indulge in this
activity quite often.
So it's quite a bit more than wishful thinking.

> |Also there is a complete absence of ascertaining whether
> |the so called better decisions are democratically
> better/acceptable.

Agreed.
That's why I advocate Superdemocracy.
To address this very serious current democratic failing.

> |It seems you have decided (dictatorially) that this doesn't
> matter - and I believe it does.

But so do I.
It seems you have misunderstood my stance for some reason
I can't determine.

> |> Limitation #3: The political process is not a screening
> |> process!
> |
> |Don't know what you mean by this.

> |This seems to be so judgemental it's impossible to


> comment.
> |
> Just as a first-hand example, I saw an alcoholic become
> elected as a party candidate and later become a Member of
> Parliament. He spent five years on a barstool in Ottawa with
> a pretty good salary. Where was the screening process?

Ah, I see what you mean now.
But many good MPs come from quite rough beginnings.
Nobody is perfect.
Because people made mistakes in one part of their lives
doesn't necesarily mean the trend will continue.
I still think this is very judgemental therefore.

> |> If elected citizens do not have good character
> |
> |In whose judgement?
>
> By those voting for the representative

Fair enough.

> |> and capacity for governance,
> |
> |In whose judgement?
>
> By those voting

Fair enough.

> |> they will not remain elected, nor will they
> |> rise up the tiers.
> |
> |By whose judgement?
>
> By those voting

Fair enough.

> |> Limitation #4: Political parties are mostly marketing
> |> machines!
> |
> |Because the current incentives for the retention of power
> |make it necessary.
> |Superdemocracy changes those incentives -
> |whereas TGS does not.
> |
> Makes no sense to me.

I thought it mightn't.
Current democracies are all dollar driven.
Superdemocracy isn't - It's vote driven,
and changes the political ball game very dramatically.

> |> A well financed, clever marketing message will never get
> |> anyone elected in a TGS.
> |
> |More wishful thinking.
> |Unless you ban public communication altogether this will
> |always be part of the political picture.
> |Superdemocracy *controls* this aspect by democratically
> |accepted limits.
> |TGS doesn't.
>
> Because the electoral districts are much smaller, the voters
> will better know the people they wish to vote for.

Fair comment - but I'm not convinced TGS would negate
promotion much - unless you introduced democratically
acceptable kinds of defined limtations.

> |> Limitation #5: Simplistic explanation of the problem and
> |> solution!
> |>
> |> TGS representatives can delve into the real reasons,
> |> which are usually not simple, for society’s problems. They can
> |> explore solutions previously unattainable because of the
> |> western democratic model’s need to make complicated
> |> problems seem simple.
> |
> |I'm not totally sold on the repeated efforts to sell
> complexity.
> |Most of life's problems are in fact just simple common
> sense.
> |It's people who're determined to *make* everything
> complicated
> |that proliferate these quite unecessary influences.
> |Complexity does exist however in specific areas of
> technical and
> |scientific enterprise etc. - and certainly experts are
> needed to explain
> |and make sense of complicated concepts to the rest of us.
> |Superdemocracy does not limit this approach/requirement in
> any way.
>
> It seems to me you have had very little experience in public
> policy. Besides, if an issue were simple, we would all come
> to the same conclusion.

Oh not at all.
That's a fairly ridiculous thing to say.
I'm quite surprised you said it actually.
No matter how simple an issue may be
people do not decide their preferences by the same criteria.
They decide according to their culture, upbringing. religion,
experience, knowledge, personal tastes etc. etc.
It's not the complexity of an issue that derives different
conclusions - it's the appreciation and preferences of the voter.

> |> Limitation #6: Elected officials spend too much time on
> |> politics!
> |
> |It seems that's what they're being paid for to do.
> |Too much time is judgemental though.
> |By what standards and in whose opinion?
> |
> You need to reread Chapter 1 to get the full meaning.
>
> |> Most elected TGS representatives will know that if they
> |> do a good job, they will likely remain elected.
> |
> |Current politicians endure the same conditions.
> |Nothing new here.
>
> Really! In Canada, we have a government that has been in
> power too long and done too many corrupt things. But polls
> give them 64% in a five-party race. It seems they are being
> judged by the ineffectiveness of the opposition parties.

Quite possibly.
Labour retained power in NZ because there's no real opposition.
But it's not their fault.
What's important is that there's no system to stop
the possibly unacceptable and certainly undemocratic legislation.

> |> Hence they will
> |> not be engaging in activities mostly designed to keep a
> |> party elected and instead devote most of their time
> |> towards governance.
> |
> |Unfortunately any elected dictatorship is consumed by this
> |incentive for survival.
> |Superdemocracy removes it.
> |Governments only have to govern in accordance with the
> |majority consensus - and they would be very hard to fall
> |foul of public acceptance.
> |TGS does not seem to change anything from current criteria.
>
> Keep saying, "we are governed by an elected dictatorship."
> But can you prove this?

Of course.
It's really quite simple.
The only true democracy that takes place is on election day.
After that the government can do as it pleases till the next election.
Nobody can stop them! Not even the opposition.
(Who don't have the numbers)
Therefore democracy is out the window - and you are left with
a straight up dictatorship that does *not* rule by majority consensus.
Hence an elected dictatorship

> |> Limitation #7: Political parties cannot harmonize the
> |> issues facing society!
> |
> |Harmonisation with what?
> |Harmonisation by whose judgement?
> |Another very wishful claim.

> Read Chapter 1.
>
> |> TGS representatives will be looking at each societal
> |> issue from many more angles—and will better see the
> |> interconnectedness of these issues. Much better
> |> harmonization is likely than with the western democratic
> |> model.
> |
> |Why would TGS representatives see anything any better?
> |There doesn't appear to be any indication or proof of this.
> |Better for who?
> |The whole TGS system is so judgemental by those within it
> |there deosn't appear to be much democracy involved at all.
> |Superdemocracy *always* provides for democratic
> |judgements across the entire electorate *not* just those of
> |a few.
>
> More platitudes.

The platitudes/lack of meaningful democracy is what's missing
from our current political system.
That's why it's a dog.

> |> Limitation #8: Political parties cannot plan for the
> future!
> |
> |Superdemocracy is streets ahead here.
> |The televote system can be used for future planning by
> conducting
> |all manner of televote surveys cheaply and easily.
> |It even allows for 12 year olds up - to vote on youth
> matters.
> |Incidentally every voter has his/her census profile in the
> televote database
> |so that extrapolation of all manner of different stats can
> easily be
> |obtained.
> |
> So how can Superdemocracy plan for the Future?

By initiating pertinent surveys of course through the televote
system.

> |> Limitation #9: Political parties are beholden to those
> |> who feed the marketing machine!
> |
> |Superdemocracy defeats this by changing the incentive from
> |the dollar to the vote.
> |
> Both sides of most referenda in the U.S. are backed by big
> $$$$$$.

That's because the whole political system is dollar driven.
Superdemocracy alters the whole political ball game to being
vote driven.
Makes a huge difference.

> |> Limitation #10: Political parties are incapable of
> |> dealing with internal corruption!
> |
> |Where-ever there's no incentive the problem will remain.
> |Too much power in too few hands always tends to corrupt.
> |Conversely - more democracy and less dictatorship produces
> |the opposite effect.
> |Superdemocracy is such a system and TGS is not.
>
> Platitudes, platitudes.

The truth is the truth is the truth.

> |> The one-year term in the TGS ensures representatives who
> do
> |> not conduct themselves worthy of their position cannot
> “ride
> |> out a storm” or hide behind a party banner to stay
> elected.
> |> There is no need for other representatives to protect
> such
> |> an individual for the sake of party unity.
> |
> |You hope.
> |
>
> There will be no political parties in the TGS. If you read
> Chapter 1, you will know that I have identified problems
> with governance by political parties--and we cannot expect
> the parties to transcend these limitations. If we don't want
> these problems, we have to think of a system without
> parties. A TGS is one such system. It seems Superdemocracy
> still has parties.

Yes.
For the time being.
I wouldn't say that would always be the case though.

> |> Limitation #11: The adversarial nature of politics!
> |>
> |> TGS representatives will not be splitting themselves on
> |> partisan lines, thus removing one unnecessary feature
> |> that creates adversity and disharmony in governance, and
> |> ultimately leads to limited decisions. In the TGS, the
> |> representatives will be working together to resolve the
> |> issues of their society, not compete for power and
> |> influence.
> |
> |Politics is often a matter of compromise.
> |It's not possible to please all the people all the time.
> |But such compromise should be democratically decided.
>
> True.
>
> |Superdemocracy offers this at all times.
> |TGS does not.
>
> Platitudes.

You seem to rely on this word quite a lot.
It's not much of an argument.

> |> Limitations # 12: Inability to shape society!
> |
> |The shape of society is up to society - not a handful of
> politicians.
> |Superdemocracy provides such a tool.
> |TGS does not.
> |
> |> The good character and capacity for governance of TGS
> |> representatives will garner respect from the citizenry at
> |> large. Many citizens will now have role-models in
> |> governance to better their own characters and abilities.
> |
> |More wishful thinking and more judgemental calls.
> |Good character? By whose standards? Yours?
>
> Yes, by mine. I will vote for someone who I think has good
> standards. Is there something wrong with this?

Yes.
What about the rest of us?
Do we have to vote according to your standards too?
What say you pick a loser?
Do we all have to lose too?
I'd suggest you leave such things to Superdemocracy
and the preferences of the electorate.

Oh I'd definitely disagree with that.
The absence of democracy automatically allows the existence
and proliferation of dictatorship - which in turn - automatically
means the preferences of the electorate are substantially ignored.
Democracy is thereby very effectively stifled.
This is the key issue and the key fault with our currently totally
outdated system that was designed for the conditions of some
three hundred years ago.

TC

R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 1:30:03 AM9/4/02
to
In message <aku25t$dkp$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
<tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>Incidentally every voter has his/her census profile in the televote database
>so that extrapolation of all manner of different stats can easily be
>obtained.

Woah! Hold the phone! You just bought yourself another major headache,
Tony. Most people are going to be paranoid enough about having their
voting record held in a database, without their whole life's story
being in there as well. Big Brother here we come...

R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 1:30:01 AM9/4/02
to
In message <al3uu3$b0m$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
<tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:lbganuk4ugd3t02k7...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>> In message <al0his$e0r$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
>> <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >> >Most of life's problems are in fact just simple common sense.
>> >>
>> >> Pick an issue, Tony. Let's see how simple it is.
>> >
>> >OK.
>> >"Should the drinking age be reverted to age 20yrs?"
>>
>> Contributing issues:
>>

<snip long list>


>>
>> That's just off the top of my head.
>
>I accept all your considerations,
>but I can't see anything complicated yet.

Each one can be relatively simple (and few, if any of the things I
listed are) and the combination would still be complex.

>Everything is very clearly stated and understandable.
>Is that it?

Just the ones that came off the top of my head in a stream of
consciousness. Probably hardly touched the surface.

>Numerous issues often involve many matters to consider.
>But that's not complication.

If they all contribute to the same issue, yes it is. First you have to
assess each one, then you have to figure out how much influence it has
on the issue, or the issue has on it, then you have to decide how
important each component is in the final decision, remembering that
some things you naturally assume to be part of one component are
really more associated with another component. Then there's the
likelihood that even your best model of the influences will only be
able to explain a small proportion of the problem. And then there's
such technical details as path dependency, net present value of future
impacts, institutional intransigency, principle-agent issues,
sensistivity analysis, differing impacts on different sectors of
society, and so on and so on.

>Complication occurs when many matters conflict,
>are not clear, are extremely technical, or are badly recorded
>or badly researched.
>It's not easy to make sound decisions under these circumstances.

And how many of those considerations fall into some or all of those
categories? Most? All?

>With the above issue it's just a matter of considering if
>the current legislation provides an overall improvement
>to society or not.

That's always the consideration. It's actually answering the question
that's hard.

>Other considerations are not really a priority at all.
>
>Anyone can *make* an issue complicated.
>The trick is to cut to the essence of it and not be sidetracked
>by a million other relatively unimportant influences.

And that's part of the complexity. Even figuring out which influences
are important and which aren't is often a headache.

R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 1:30:02 AM9/4/02
to
In message <UHed9.12460$q6.5...@news0.telusplanet.net>, "Dave Volek"
<vo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:

>Televoting has also proven to be
>susceptible to hackers and fraud.

Examples?

>There will be no political parties in the TGS.

There will. Unless you outlaw them. And then there will be "book
clubs", "discussion groups" and "lodges" that organise people for
political purposes.

R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 6:45:29 AM9/4/02
to
In message <al44ib$fu3$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
<tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>>Televoting has also proven to be
>> susceptible to hackers and fraud.
>
>LOL.
>Once again a different system.
>The NZ system is failsafe in this regard.
>We have a classified system that is unbreakable/unhackable.

No such thing. The only 100% uncrackable system is one that is
isolated from any outside access... and even then there's the
possibility of an inside job. Just because a system has never been
hacked, doesn't mean it can't be done.

>A prize of $100,000 will be constantly offered to anyone who can
>hack into it - with no prosecution.

That would certainly help. Although there's always the possibility
that a successful hacker would find it more profitable to exploit the
hack.

>(snipped)
>> |> Limitation #2: Political parties are not think-tanks!
>> |
>> |No - but they can organise such things.
>> |Political parties are leaders/initiators.
>> |
>> |This is just wishful thinking.
>
>It's backed by the fact that our goverments indulge in this
>activity quite often.
>So it's quite a bit more than wishful thinking.

Talking to yourself, Tony?

>> |Also there is a complete absence of ascertaining whether
>> |the so called better decisions are democratically
>> better/acceptable.
>
>Agreed.
>That's why I advocate Superdemocracy.
>To address this very serious current democratic failing.

Great minds think alike? More like fools seldom differ... with
themselves.

>> |It seems you have decided (dictatorially) that this doesn't
>> matter - and I believe it does.
>
>But so do I.
>It seems you have misunderstood my stance for some reason
>I can't determine.

You don't understand your own stance? I think the rest of us knew that
already.

>Current democracies are all dollar driven.
>Superdemocracy isn't - It's vote driven,
>and changes the political ball game very dramatically.

Marketing $$$ = votes. Facts of political life. Now. For Dave. For
you. For me. For everyone. You can't beat the mighty dollar. You just
have to make it work *with* the system, not against it.

tonycook

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 7:14:14 PM9/4/02
to

"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:br4bnu0pou212k4dq...@news.xtra.co.nz...

> In message <aku25t$dkp$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
> <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >Incidentally every voter has his/her census profile in the televote
database
> >so that extrapolation of all manner of different stats can easily be
> >obtained.
>
> Woah! Hold the phone! You just bought yourself another major headache,
> Tony. Most people are going to be paranoid enough about having their
> voting record held in a database, without their whole life's story
> being in there as well. Big Brother here we come...

The State already has census information to assist with future planning.
And that's what it will *still* be used for.
And the same information would be available only as numbers not names,
so the Privacy Act is *not* compromised or breached in any way.
So sit down and try to behave like a reasonably educated person.
I realise that your DRP system can't hope to compete with this very useful
tool - but then I did point out it was probably not overall as superior as
Superdemocracy.

TC


tonycook

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 7:38:14 PM9/4/02
to

"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3n1bnukeo7cckqler...@news.xtra.co.nz...

> In message <al3uu3$b0m$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
> <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:lbganuk4ugd3t02k7...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> >> In message <al0his$e0r$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
> >> <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >> >> >Most of life's problems are in fact just simple common sense.
> >> >>
> >> >> Pick an issue, Tony. Let's see how simple it is.
> >> >
> >> >OK.
> >> >"Should the drinking age be reverted to age 20yrs?"
> >>
> >> Contributing issues:
> >>
> <snip long list>
> >>
> >> That's just off the top of my head.
> >
> >I accept all your considerations,
> >but I can't see anything complicated yet.
>
> Each one can be relatively simple (and few, if any of the things I
> listed are) and the combination would still be complex.

Nope.
All pretty straightforward to me.

> >Everything is very clearly stated and understandable.
> >Is that it?
>
> Just the ones that came off the top of my head in a stream of
> consciousness. Probably hardly touched the surface.

Oh I'm sure you're right.
I could think of a few more aspects too.
But do you realise that no matter how carefully you consider
every single possible aspect and its priority - you can still
come up with an unsuccessful answer?

> >Numerous issues often involve many matters to consider.
> >But that's not complication.
>
> If they all contribute to the same issue, yes it is.

(blah blah .....snipped)

> >Complication occurs when many matters conflict,
> >are not clear, are extremely technical, or are badly recorded
> >or badly researched.
> >It's not easy to make sound decisions under these circumstances.
>
> And how many of those considerations fall into some or all of those
> categories? Most? All?

I have no idea.
It's not a concern to me - because I evaluate each issue
on its own merits - and according to my own personal preferences -
as I believe most other people do.
Complexity usually only occurs when very specialised knowledge
becomes a prominent aspect - and decision makers are forced to be
dependent on it.

> >With the above issue it's just a matter of considering if
> >the current legislation provides an overall improvement
> >to society or not.
>
> That's always the consideration. It's actually answering the question
> that's hard.

It's the same thing.

> >Other considerations are not really a priority at all.
> >Anyone can *make* an issue complicated.
> >The trick is to cut to the essence of it and not be sidetracked
> >by a million other relatively unimportant influences.
>
> And that's part of the complexity.

Most people don't find this complicated at all.
They can see the wood for the trees without much bother.

> Even figuring out which influences
> are important and which aren't is often a headache.

LOL.
You worry too much.
Life must be very hard for you - if you think that every decision
must undergo such unecessary and totally contrived obstacle courses.
I'm aware that some people sometimes devote their lives to complicating
issues beyond belief - but then that seems to be your preference -
so good luck with it.


TC


tonycook

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 5:34:30 PM9/4/02
to

"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:cqmbnu0gpl8s7bmr9...@news.xtra.co.nz...

> In message <al44ib$fu3$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
> <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >>Televoting has also proven to be
> >> susceptible to hackers and fraud.
> >
> >LOL.
> >Once again a different system.
> >The NZ system is failsafe in this regard.
> >We have a classified system that is unbreakable/unhackable.
>
> No such thing.

Rubbish.
If the British had not captured an enigma machine and a code book
during WW2 - they would still be trying to decode German messages.

> The only 100% uncrackable system is one that is
> isolated from any outside access...

How very true - and that's a part of the televote system's security
infallibility - including all radio frequency access.
It's impossible to get into - plus the sophisticated encoding used
cannot be accessed/changed either.

>and even then there's the possibility of an inside job.

Not a chance.
The Televote Centre technical division is divided into three
separate high security areas, staffed only by their own security
cleared personnel.
No staff can go from one area to another.
All data is recorded on specially made unchangeable formats.
All data banks are securely linked to the other two Televote Centre
data banks and when data is removed it must compare exactly
with the data at the other two Centres.
I'm not at liberty to tell you any more - but as you can see it's
a very sophisticated system that defies hacking completely.

> Just because a system has never been hacked, doesn't mean it
can't be done.

And we'll be happy to give you or anyone $100,000 if you can.
We believe we have minimised such security risk beyond human reach.
Also the system has automatic identifiers/recorders that can isolate
phone numbers and warn of any tampering instantly as well.

> >A prize of $100,000 will be constantly offered to anyone who can
> >hack into it - with no prosecution.
>
> That would certainly help. Although there's always the possibility
> that a successful hacker would find it more profitable to exploit the
> hack.

But the system would automatically know and alert staff.
I think you're clutching/reaching for very slim/short straws.

> >(snipped)
> >> |> Limitation #2: Political parties are not think-tanks!
> >> |
> >> |No - but they can organise such things.
> >> |Political parties are leaders/initiators.
> >> |
> >> |This is just wishful thinking.
> >
> >It's backed by the fact that our goverments indulge in this
> >activity quite often.
> >So it's quite a bit more than wishful thinking.
>
> Talking to yourself, Tony?

LOL.
Well it's not my fault if others can't understand realities.
I didn't claim the so called government "think tanks" were
any good - I just claimed they had them.

> >> |Also there is a complete absence of ascertaining whether
> >> |the so called better decisions are democratically
> >> better/acceptable.
> >
> >Agreed.
> >That's why I advocate Superdemocracy.
> >To address this very serious current democratic failing.
>
> Great minds think alike? More like fools seldom differ... with
> themselves.

In your unconvincing opinion perhaps.
Superdemocracy has nothing to do with rocket scientists -
just the majority consensus of the electorate for whatever their
reasons.

(snipped)


> >Current democracies are all dollar driven.
> >Superdemocracy isn't - It's vote driven,
> >and changes the political ball game very dramatically.
>
> Marketing $$$ = votes. Facts of political life. Now. For Dave. For
> you. For me. For everyone. You can't beat the mighty dollar. You just
> have to make it work *with* the system, not against it.

Incorrect.
How can a giant corporation lean on a government that is bound
by a binding vote criteria televote or must resign?
Eh?
Impossible!

You can't coerce an entire electorate when you haven't got the numbers
of votes - no matter how many dollars you've got.
Superdemocracy therefore returns absolute power to the electorate where
it always should have been.
If people suspect corporation intervention - they have the perfect system
to inform the public and take whatever action the electorate deems
appropriate.
Superdemocracy saves the day yet again!


TC


R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 11:33:20 PM9/4/02
to
In message <al65ig$509$4...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
<tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:br4bnu0pou212k4dq...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>> In message <aku25t$dkp$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
>> <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >Incidentally every voter has his/her census profile in the televote
>database
>> >so that extrapolation of all manner of different stats can easily be
>> >obtained.
>>
>> Woah! Hold the phone! You just bought yourself another major headache,
>> Tony. Most people are going to be paranoid enough about having their
>> voting record held in a database, without their whole life's story
>> being in there as well. Big Brother here we come...
>
>The State already has census information to assist with future planning.

In summary form, not individual "profiles".

>And that's what it will *still* be used for.
>And the same information would be available only as numbers not names,
>so the Privacy Act is *not* compromised or breached in any way.

Your statement above is talking about linking individual "census
profiles" to voting records. That certainly doesn't happen now. In
fact until the most recent census the original documents were all
destroyed, leaving only the summary data down to the meshblock level.

Are you retracting your initial statement?

>So sit down and try to behave like a reasonably educated person.
>I realise that your DRP system can't hope to compete with this very useful
>tool - but then I did point out it was probably not overall as superior as
>Superdemocracy.

Grow up.

R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 11:33:18 PM9/4/02
to
In message <al65ib$509$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
<tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:cqmbnu0gpl8s7bmr9...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>> In message <al44ib$fu3$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
>> <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> >We have a classified system that is unbreakable/unhackable.
>>
>> No such thing.
>
>Rubbish.
>If the British had not captured an enigma machine and a code book
>during WW2 - they would still be trying to decode German messages.

And yet when they did get hold of one, they were able to decode them
within hours. No such thing as an unhackable system. The system isn't
just the code, it's the people, the machines, the processes that
surround it.

>> The only 100% uncrackable system is one that is
>> isolated from any outside access...
>
>How very true - and that's a part of the televote system's security
>infallibility - including all radio frequency access.
>It's impossible to get into - plus the sophisticated encoding used
>cannot be accessed/changed either.

Bollocks. In order for it to be used to gather votes, it has to be
linked to the phone system.

>>and even then there's the possibility of an inside job.
>
>Not a chance.
>The Televote Centre technical division is divided into three
>separate high security areas, staffed only by their own security
>cleared personnel.

And of course nobody can fool a security clearance system! Yeah,
right.

>No staff can go from one area to another.

What about cleaners? Maintenance personnel? Break ins?

>All data is recorded on specially made unchangeable formats.

So what? A good hacker will make legitimate looking changes anyway.

>All data banks are securely linked to the other two Televote Centre
>data banks and when data is removed it must compare exactly
>with the data at the other two Centres.

So they're not isolated.

>I'm not at liberty to tell you any more - but as you can see it's
>a very sophisticated system that defies hacking completely.

Not even close.

>> >A prize of $100,000 will be constantly offered to anyone who can
>> >hack into it - with no prosecution.
>>
>> That would certainly help. Although there's always the possibility
>> that a successful hacker would find it more profitable to exploit the
>> hack.
>
>But the system would automatically know and alert staff.

You expect a hacker good enough to break into your "impossible to
hack" system to be careless enough to stumble over your "alarms"?

>I think you're clutching/reaching for very slim/short straws.

Sure, the odds aren't high. But nothing is fool-proof.

>> >(snipped)
>> >> |> Limitation #2: Political parties are not think-tanks!
>> >> |
>> >> |No - but they can organise such things.
>> >> |Political parties are leaders/initiators.
>> >> |
>> >> |This is just wishful thinking.
>> >
>> >It's backed by the fact that our goverments indulge in this
>> >activity quite often.
>> >So it's quite a bit more than wishful thinking.
>>
>> Talking to yourself, Tony?
>
>LOL.
>Well it's not my fault if others can't understand realities.

<sigh> You were replying to your own words, Tony. Sometimes you
surprise even me with how thick you are.

>> >> |Also there is a complete absence of ascertaining whether
>> >> |the so called better decisions are democratically
>> >> better/acceptable.
>> >
>> >Agreed.
>> >That's why I advocate Superdemocracy.
>> >To address this very serious current democratic failing.
>>
>> Great minds think alike? More like fools seldom differ... with
>> themselves.
>
>In your unconvincing opinion perhaps.

Again, you were replying to yourself. A fool and himself seldom
differ.

>Superdemocracy has nothing to do with rocket scientists -

Obviously!!! It's chief spokesman doesn't even notice that he's been
replying to himself when it's pointed out to him!

>(snipped)
>> >Current democracies are all dollar driven.
>> >Superdemocracy isn't - It's vote driven,
>> >and changes the political ball game very dramatically.
>>
>> Marketing $$$ = votes. Facts of political life. Now. For Dave. For
>> you. For me. For everyone. You can't beat the mighty dollar. You just
>> have to make it work *with* the system, not against it.
>
>Incorrect.
>How can a giant corporation lean on a government that is bound
>by a binding vote criteria televote or must resign?

Marketing dollars aren't aimed at governments, they're aimed at the
electorate.

>You can't coerce an entire electorate when you haven't got the numbers
>of votes - no matter how many dollars you've got.

The dollars are used to convince people that they want to vote your
way. Look at California, Tony.

tonycook

unread,
Sep 5, 2002, 3:26:21 PM9/5/02
to

"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:h1kdnug3alut0llbs...@news.xtra.co.nz...

> In message <al65ig$509$4...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
> <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
(snipped)

> >> >Incidentally every voter has his/her census profile in the televote
> >> >database so that extrapolation of all manner of different stats can
> >> >easily be obtained.
> >>
> >> Woah! Hold the phone! You just bought yourself another major headache,
> >> Tony. Most people are going to be paranoid enough about having their
> >> voting record held in a database, without their whole life's story
> >> being in there as well. Big Brother here we come...
> >
> >The State already has census information to assist with future planning.
>
> In summary form, not individual "profiles".

Don't know what you mean by "summary form".
All the info each census form has is available to govt. depts.
for future planning.
That's what they're for.

> >And that's what it will *still* be used for.
> >And the same information would be available only as numbers not names,
> >so the Privacy Act is *not* compromised or breached in any way.
>
> Your statement above is talking about linking individual "census
> profiles" to voting records.

No *you* said that - not me.
Televote files/data cannot be read by anyone - they are specially encoded.
All extrapolated data is obtained electronically and as numbers/percentages
not as personal profiles.

(snipped)


> >So sit down and try to behave like a reasonably educated person.
> >I realise that your DRP system can't hope to compete with this very
useful
> >tool - but then I did point out it was probably not overall as superior
as
> >Superdemocracy.


TC

tonycook

unread,
Sep 5, 2002, 4:10:13 PM9/5/02
to

"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:mrjdnu8c28mbljqsv...@news.xtra.co.nz...

> In message <al65ib$509$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
> <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >> >We have a classified system that is unbreakable/unhackable.
> >>
> >> No such thing.
> >
> >Rubbish.
> >If the British had not captured an enigma machine and a code book
> >during WW2 - they would still be trying to decode German messages.
>
> And yet when they did get hold of one, they were able to decode them
> within hours.

Of course.
But they had to have the answers before they could work anything
out.
The televote system is even more difficult because you not only
can't get access - even if you did - you would be detected - then
you would need access to three different high security areas in
succession - which would be impossible anyway.

> No such thing as an unhackable system.

Sorry disagree,
Anything is possible - including an unhackable system.
You can't hack what you can't get into.

> The system isn't
> just the code, it's the people, the machines, the processes that
> surround it.

I realise that - and that is taken care of too.

> >> The only 100% uncrackable system is one that is
> >> isolated from any outside access...
> >
> >How very true - and that's a part of the televote system's security
> >infallibility - including all radio frequency access.
> >It's impossible to get into - plus the sophisticated encoding used
> >cannot be accessed/changed either.
>

> In order for it to be used to gather votes, it has to be
> linked to the phone system.

Indeed.
But that is only stage one - and there are two other totally separated
high security stages.
The different high security areas can still be attended by scrutineers
too without risk.
But no human eyes ever see what people vote.

> >>and even then there's the possibility of an inside job.
> >
> >Not a chance.
> >The Televote Centre technical division is divided into three
> >separate high security areas, staffed only by their own security
> >cleared personnel.
>
> And of course nobody can fool a security clearance system! Yeah,
> right.

That's right.
I can't speak for other slack systems - but not a televote one.
Our prison security system for example is just a joke.

> >No staff can go from one area to another.
>
> What about cleaners? Maintenance personnel? Break ins?

What about them?
I just said *all* personnel only ever service *one* high security area.
They will never ever see the other two - and you need all three areas
to make anything work.

> >All data is recorded on specially made unchangeable formats.
>
> So what? A good hacker will make legitimate looking changes anyway.

Incorrect.
You can't change anything - it's impossible.
Once a recording is taken it cannot ever be changed.
Not that anyone could ever get into the system anyway.

> >All data banks are securely linked to the other two Televote Centre
> >data banks and when data is removed it must compare exactly
> >with the data at the other two Centres.
>
> So they're not isolated.

Yes they are isolated in a special way.
But connect only for approved data retrieval.

> >I'm not at liberty to tell you any more - but as you can see it's
> >a very sophisticated system that defies hacking completely.
>
> Not even close.

Incorrect.
You cannot establish or claim such a thing when you don't
even know how it's all done.
I'm not particularly concerned about your ridiculous doubts anyway
because I do know how it's done - though not technically.

> >> >A prize of $100,000 will be constantly offered to anyone who can
> >> >hack into it - with no prosecution.
> >>
> >> That would certainly help. Although there's always the possibility
> >> that a successful hacker would find it more profitable to exploit the
> >> hack.
> >
> >But the system would automatically know and alert staff.
>
> You expect a hacker good enough to break into your "impossible to
> hack" system to be careless enough to stumble over your "alarms"?

LOL.
No-one will be able to avoid them.
Anything other than prescribed input will be detected.

> >I think you're clutching/reaching for very slim/short straws.
>
> Sure, the odds aren't high. But nothing is fool-proof.

Is that so.
There are certain things in this life that *can* be made foolproof.
Has there been a nuclear war yet?
Those security systems are reasonably foolproof too.
It's just a matter of how thoroughly you decide to do things.
In the case of the televote system we *can* do an exceptionally
good security job - and we will.

(snipped)
> >> >Current democracies are all dollar driven.
> >> >Superdemocracy isn't - It's vote driven,
> >> >and changes the political ball game very dramatically.
> >>
> >> Marketing $$$ = votes. Facts of political life. Now. For Dave. For
> >> you. For me. For everyone. You can't beat the mighty dollar. You just
> >> have to make it work *with* the system, not against it.
> >
> >Incorrect.
> >How can a giant corporation lean on a government that is bound
> >by a binding vote criteria televote or must resign?
>
> Marketing dollars aren't aimed at governments, they're aimed at the
> electorate.

So what?
Are you for freedom of expression or not?
It's perfectly legitimate for *anybody* to campaign for what they believe in
for whatever reason.
What's not acceptable is for giant corporations to pressure governments
into deals or policies that favour them unfairly using their big bucks as
bait/pay-offs.

> >You can't coerce an entire electorate when you haven't got the numbers
> >of votes - no matter how many dollars you've got.
>
> The dollars are used to convince people that they want to vote your
> way. Look at California, Tony.

The NZTC promos will soon sort anything like this out.


TC

R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 9:34:45 PM9/6/02
to
In message <al8h3r$eju$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
<tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:mrjdnu8c28mbljqsv...@news.xtra.co.nz...

>> No such thing as an unhackable system.
>
>Sorry disagree,

Tony, I'm not trying to suggest that the security is not adequate. A
system that takes a long time to crack, and plenty of traps and
safeguards, could be far more secure than the existing system. That's
all anyone could expect. What I object to is your claims of
perfection. It's impossible.

Nobody but you believes in perfectly unhackable systems, so you're
better off telling the truth - nothing is perfect, but this one hasn't
been hacked yet, and we'll be doing our darnedest to make sure the
televote systems never are.

>> And of course nobody can fool a security clearance system! Yeah,
>> right.
>
>That's right.
>I can't speak for other slack systems - but not a televote one.
>Our prison security system for example is just a joke.

That's ridiculous. How can you possibly ensure against someone
previously spotless being bribed with millions, being converted to a
cause, or simply going postal? It's impossible to screen people so
well that there's no chance of an insider deciding to go rogue. Again,
better to tell the truth - nothing's perfect, but the people will be
carefully screened using the best available methods. Again, you can
probably claim that the people are more trustworthy than in the
present system, but no system is perfect.

>> >All data banks are securely linked to the other two Televote Centre
>> >data banks and when data is removed it must compare exactly
>> >with the data at the other two Centres.
>>
>> So they're not isolated.
>
>Yes they are isolated in a special way.
>But connect only for approved data retrieval.

Any connection is a vulnerability. These connections are hundreds of
kilometres long. That's a lot of opportunities for junction-boxing.

>> You expect a hacker good enough to break into your "impossible to
>> hack" system to be careless enough to stumble over your "alarms"?
>
>LOL.
>No-one will be able to avoid them.
>Anything other than prescribed input will be detected.

Tony, the whole point of hacking is to make what you do look like
"prescribed input".

>> >I think you're clutching/reaching for very slim/short straws.
>>
>> Sure, the odds aren't high. But nothing is fool-proof.
>
>Is that so.
>There are certain things in this life that *can* be made foolproof.
>Has there been a nuclear war yet?
>Those security systems are reasonably foolproof too.

They're as good as it gets... and they still have scares.

>It's just a matter of how thoroughly you decide to do things.
>In the case of the televote system we *can* do an exceptionally
>good security job - and we will.

Sure. I don't dispute that. But nothing is perfect.

>What's not acceptable is for giant corporations to pressure governments
>into deals or policies that favour them unfairly using their big bucks as
>bait/pay-offs.

But it's okay for them to pressure voters into policies that favour
them using their big bucks as bait or pay-offs? Look at California,
Tony. Look and learn.

>> >You can't coerce an entire electorate when you haven't got the numbers
>> >of votes - no matter how many dollars you've got.
>>
>> The dollars are used to convince people that they want to vote your
>> way. Look at California, Tony.
>
>The NZTC promos will soon sort anything like this out.

No, Tony. They won't. The corporations will have far bigger budgets
than the NZTC.

R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 9:34:46 PM9/6/02
to
In message <al8h3q$eju$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
<tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:h1kdnug3alut0llbs...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>> In message <al65ig$509$4...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
>> <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> >The State already has census information to assist with future planning.
>>
>> In summary form, not individual "profiles".
>
>Don't know what you mean by "summary form".
>All the info each census form has is available to govt. depts.
>for future planning.

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance. The information government
departments have is statistical information at the meshblock level
(about 250 people) only.

From the Statistics New Zealand website:
:: How do you keep my information confidential?
:: The law protects the information you provide. It must be used only for
:: statistical purposes. The census provides information about groups of
:: people, not individuals. When we prepare statistics, we combine your
:: information with similar information from others. Disclosing or
:: publishing any information about an individual is an offence. All
:: census data is randomly rounded to base three to protect
:: confidentiality. In addition, there are rules which restrict the
:: release of information for very small areas where there would be an
:: increased chance of identifying individuals.
::
:: The only people who have access to your information are those
:: authorised by Statistics New Zealand. Each of them signs a Declaration
:: of Secrecy, which means they can't reveal your information to anyone
:: else. No one else can see your answers – not even if they work for
:: another government department.
::
:: On your census form, you were asked for your name and address. They
:: were only needed to reach you if anything was missing or if you had
:: been selected to take part in surveys on disability or the Mäori
:: language, which followed the census. In 2001, there was a question
:: that asked if you gave your consent to having your individual census
:: form archived for 100 years. The forms of those who did not give
:: consent have been destroyed by shredding.

>> >And that's what it will *still* be used for.
>> >And the same information would be available only as numbers not names,
>> >so the Privacy Act is *not* compromised or breached in any way.
>>
>> Your statement above is talking about linking individual "census
>> profiles" to voting records.
>
>No *you* said that - not me.

You said in message <aku25t$dkp$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>:
:: Incidentally every voter has his/her census profile in the televote database


:: so that extrapolation of all manner of different stats can easily be
:: obtained.

>Televote files/data cannot be read by anyone - they are specially encoded.

But they're still linked, surely? Otherwise, why have the census
information in the televote database? Why mention it?

>All extrapolated data is obtained electronically and as numbers/percentages
>not as personal profiles.

Ah yes, the impossibly perfect "unhackable system". Nobody buys it,
Tony.

tonycook

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 4:55:23 PM9/7/02
to

"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:o5linu4m666ko4m6h...@news.xtra.co.nz...

> In message <al8h3q$eju$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
> <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >> >The State already has census information to assist with future
planning.
> >>
> >> In summary form, not individual "profiles".
> >
> >Don't know what you mean by "summary form".
> >All the info each census form has is available to govt. depts.
> >for future planning.
>
> Once again you demonstrate your ignorance.

I'm informed by people who are quite a bit more qualified than you.

> The information government
> departments have is statistical information at the meshblock level
> (about 250 people) only.

Census information is *available* in any form they want it.
I think an ex cabinet minister would know better than you.
You are not the end all and be all of NZ census information
and you have been in error numerous times now.

> :: From the Statistics New Zealand website:


> :: How do you keep my information confidential?

It is specially encoded so that no human can read it and it is kept
in a high security area to which only a very few authorised personnel
have access. (Far less than 250)
Nothing can be accessed without two other high security areas being
cleared for use and this means the other two televote centres have to be
cleared as well.
The process of extracting information from the televote system is all
security protected as well.

> :: The law protects the information you provide. It must be used only for
> :: statistical purposes. The census provides information about groups of
> :: people, not individuals.

And that's all the televote system will do too.
Nothing different from what is done now except the advanced
technology and greater inputting potentials.
So sit down and don't make such an ass of yourself.

> >> >And that's what it will *still* be used for.
> >> >And the same information would be available only as numbers not names,
> >> >so the Privacy Act is *not* compromised or breached in any way.
> >>
> >> Your statement above is talking about linking individual "census
> >> profiles" to voting records.

Any kind of linkages are very brief and totally electronic - no human being
sees
anything.
It's a better and even more secure system than we have now.

(snipped)


> :: Incidentally every voter has his/her census profile in the televote
database
> :: so that extrapolation of all manner of different stats can easily be
> :: obtained.

Correct.
But in a totally unreadable format as I 've explained.
You gave the impression that people might be able to access and actually
read
it in some way.
Not a chance.

> >Televote files/data cannot be read by anyone - they are specially
encoded.
>
> But they're still linked, surely?

Not in the way you would expect - I cannot be more specific because
classification of security systems prevents me.
The point is - there is no danger whatever of confidentiality being
compromised or breached.
When the time comes the public *will* be fully informed and be invited
to see the televote facilities at suitable times.
There will be plenty of time to do this during the two years of trials.
Commercial interests need flawless security too of course.
*Some* of the security systems will still remain classified for obvious
reasons.
But the televote system itself will be explained to members of the public
and
of course be demonstrated.

> Otherwise, why have the census
> information in the televote database? Why mention it?

Because I'm an up front guy with nothing to hide.
I have no intention whatever of witholding *any* information (unless
classified)
about the Televote system and all its marvellous possibilities.
Also - if the electorate don't want the system used in this way - they can
vote
it out.
Nothing is going to be *forced* on the electorate - as it is currently.

> >All extrapolated data is obtained electronically and as
numbers/percentages
> >not as personal profiles.
>
> Ah yes, the impossibly perfect "unhackable system". Nobody buys it,
> Tony.

Is that so.
I'd like to see your evidence of that.
Not that you have any of course - as we all know.
Just another one of your growing number of errors and misconceptions
it seems.


TC

tonycook

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 5:53:25 PM9/7/02
to

"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:qckinugafvffq1k17...@news.xtra.co.nz...

> In message <al8h3r$eju$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"

Stumpy wrote:
> >> No such thing as an unhackable system.
> >
> >Sorry disagree,
>
> Tony, I'm not trying to suggest that the security is not adequate.

Well you certainly fooled me - and a few other Superdems besides.
I'd say that was your explicit intent to a tee.

> A system that takes a long time to crack, and plenty of traps and
> safeguards, could be far more secure than the existing system. That's
> all anyone could expect. What I object to is your claims of
> perfection. It's impossible.

Object all you like.
But there are some things in this universe that *are* impossible.
eg. It's impossible for computers to function without energy.
or, It's impossible for human beings to live for very long without
food and water.
The maxim - *nothing* is impossible - is not entirely true.
There are plenty of things that are impossible.

And I don't think it's unrealistic to claim foolproof security
for the televote security system.
You have to know all about this security system to understand
why it is just impossible to hack.
We wouldn't offer $100,000 to anyone who could hack it if we
weren't very very confident it couldn't be.

eg. If you have a computer that has no power - and is not linked
to anything - and cannot be accessed by radio waves or any
other means - wouldn't you claim it to be slightly unhackable?

Well that's a similar situation this system provides - yet it still
obtains *all* and *only* the information it needs.
I have to admit it's slightly brilliant.

> Nobody but you believes in perfectly unhackable systems, so you're
> better off telling the truth - nothing is perfect, but this one hasn't
> been hacked yet, and we'll be doing our darnedest to make sure the
> televote systems never are.

Feel free to try.

> >> And of course nobody can fool a security clearance system! Yeah,
> >> right.
> >
> >That's right.
> >I can't speak for other slack systems - but not a televote one.
> >Our prison security system for example is just a joke.
>
> That's ridiculous. How can you possibly ensure against someone
> previously spotless being bribed with millions, being converted to a
> cause, or simply going postal? It's impossible to screen people so
> well that there's no chance of an insider deciding to go rogue.

One person could do nothing.
You would actually need nine.
Then again - what could possibly be gained anyway?
You can't change votes once they're recorded.
If you recorded votes that hadn't been made yet by the real
voter - someone is going to discover this and report it.
Each one must be done individually with PIN codes and only
from prenominated phone numbers.
It takes 25,000 votes to alter the result by 1 percent.
It's a mammoth task - all for what?
Nobody would know how much they had to change a vote by
to be effective anyway.
And you've already argued the government won't take any
notice of televote results anyway.
I don't agree with your claim for one moment - but you are going
ballistic for no valid reason whatever.

(snipped)


> >> >All data banks are securely linked to the other two Televote Centre
> >> >data banks and when data is removed it must compare exactly
> >> >with the data at the other two Centres.
> >>
> >> So they're not isolated.
> >
> >Yes they are isolated in a special way.
> >But connect only for approved data retrieval.
>
> Any connection is a vulnerability. These connections are hundreds of
> kilometres long. That's a lot of opportunities for junction-boxing.

I'm afraid not - the links are not the usual kind.
A different technology is used.

> >> You expect a hacker good enough to break into your "impossible to
> >> hack" system to be careless enough to stumble over your "alarms"?
> >
> >LOL.
> >No-one will be able to avoid them.
> >Anything other than prescribed input will be detected.
>
> Tony, the whole point of hacking is to make what you do look like
> "prescribed input".

I know that.
But you won't outwit the televote detectors.
They only accept pre-programmed possibilities.
Nothing else.
Anything else is immediately detected.

> >> >I think you're clutching/reaching for very slim/short straws.
> >>
> >> Sure, the odds aren't high. But nothing is fool-proof.
> >
> >Is that so.
> >There are certain things in this life that *can* be made foolproof.
> >Has there been a nuclear war yet?
> >Those security systems are reasonably foolproof too.
>
> They're as good as it gets... and they still have scares.

Stumpy, I've let you rave on because you are quite rightly
concerned about security - as I'm sure others would be too.
For the time being you are just going to have to accept
that the NZSDP knows that televote security has to be second
to none - and we are extremely confident that it will measure up
accordingly.

(snipped)


> >What's not acceptable is for giant corporations to pressure governments
> >into deals or policies that favour them unfairly using their big bucks as
> >bait/pay-offs.
>
> But it's okay for them to pressure voters into policies that favour
> them using their big bucks as bait or pay-offs? Look at California,
> Tony. Look and learn.
>
> >> >You can't coerce an entire electorate when you haven't got the numbers
> >> >of votes - no matter how many dollars you've got.
> >>
> >> The dollars are used to convince people that they want to vote your
> >> way. Look at California, Tony.

Completely different system.
Wouldn't have a bar of it.

Dollars don't convince anybody of anything.
Only facts and valid information does.

> >The NZTC promos will soon sort anything like this out.
>
> No, Tony. They won't.

I totally disagree.
You are not a very good visualiser.
You have to remember they are up against three months of
intensive promos in prime time TV/Radio/Press - plus the weight
of the media's own appraisals and comment - plus the weight
of all the different party's politics and so on.

> The corporations will have far bigger budgets
> than the NZTC.

Meaningless.
It's not budgets that count - it's numbers of votes.
You can't *buy* everybody Stumpy - no matter how many bucks you've got -
especially if the results/arguments are not to the electorate's
liking/advantage.
Your fears are quite groundless.

TC

Matt Ledgerwood

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 6:53:30 PM9/7/02
to
tonycook <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> You can't *buy* everybody Stumpy - no matter how many bucks you've got -

A quick peak at today's music charts would suggest otherwise.

R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 10:21:27 PM9/7/02
to
In message <aldulp$sm9$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
<tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:o5linu4m666ko4m6h...@news.xtra.co.nz...

>> The information government
>> departments have is statistical information at the meshblock level
>> (about 250 people) only.
>
>Census information is *available* in any form they want it.
>I think an ex cabinet minister would know better than you.
>You are not the end all and be all of NZ census information
>and you have been in error numerous times now.

The information I posted from the Statistics New Zealand site was
pretty straight-forward and backed up what I said. So far you haven't
offered any evidence to the contrary except your interpretation of
your recollection of something some unnamed ex-cabinet minister once
told you. In other words, shonky hearsay.

>> :: The law protects the information you provide. It must be used only for
>> :: statistical purposes. The census provides information about groups of
>> :: people, not individuals.
>
>And that's all the televote system will do too.
>Nothing different from what is done now except the advanced
>technology and greater inputting potentials.

Does this mean that you're retracting your statement about "census
profiles"?

What do you mean by "greater inputting potentials"? Statistics New
Zealand already subjects the census data to plenty of technology.
That's their job. I don't know what "advanced technology" you could
add.

>(snipped)
>> :: Incidentally every voter has his/her census profile in the televote
>database
>> :: so that extrapolation of all manner of different stats can easily be
>> :: obtained.
>
>Correct.
>But in a totally unreadable format as I 've explained.

If it can be used by the machine, it can be extracted.

>> Ah yes, the impossibly perfect "unhackable system". Nobody buys it,
>> Tony.
>
>Is that so.
>I'd like to see your evidence of that.

Trot over to nz.comp and outline your "unhackable" system there.
You'll get all the evidence you want.

R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 10:21:25 PM9/7/02
to
In message <aldulq$sm9$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
<tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>Well that's a similar situation this system provides - yet it still
>obtains *all* and *only* the information it needs.
>I have to admit it's slightly brilliant.

Tony, you've already proved your ignorance of referenda results,
census and survey procedures and statistics. Somehow I don't think
your say-so on IT security carries much weight. *All* of these are
areas I have some experience with, and you have... gut feeling,
wishful thinking and the say-so of a marketing guy for the security
system? How gullible are you?

>I don't agree with your claim for one moment - but you are going
>ballistic for no valid reason whatever.

I don't know why I let you wind me up, Tony, but for some reason it
really pisses me off when you make unsupportable claims of any form of
perfection for your shonky system. No system is perfect. You can argue
for "better" on some counts - a lot better in a few areas - but when
you start spouting perfection somebody has to call you on it. I've
told this over and over - claim advantage, fine. Claim perfection and
you'll get shot down. Do you never learn?

>> Any connection is a vulnerability. These connections are hundreds of
>> kilometres long. That's a lot of opportunities for junction-boxing.
>
>I'm afraid not - the links are not the usual kind.
>A different technology is used.

You can't guard the whole of a several hundred kilometre land line,
and transmitted signals can be intercepted too. I don't care what the
technology is, if it has to cross hundreds of kilometres there are
going to be vulnerabilities. They can be controlled and minimised, but
they can't be eliminated.

>> They're as good as it gets... and they still have scares.
>
>Stumpy, I've let you rave on because you are quite rightly
>concerned about security - as I'm sure others would be too.
>For the time being you are just going to have to accept
>that the NZSDP knows that televote security has to be second
>to none - and we are extremely confident that it will measure up
>accordingly.

And I have no problem with it when you put it that way. It's claims
that it'll be foolproof that I object to.

>> >> The dollars are used to convince people that they want to vote your
>> >> way. Look at California, Tony.
>
>Completely different system.
>Wouldn't have a bar of it.
>
>Dollars don't convince anybody of anything.
>Only facts and valid information does.

<sigh>

tonycook

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 2:50:51 PM9/8/02
to

"Matt Ledgerwood" <le...@nat.matrx.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ale01a$s7i$5...@lust.ihug.co.nz...

> tonycook <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > You can't *buy* everybody Stumpy - no matter how many bucks you've got -
>
> A quick peak at today's music charts would suggest otherwise.

LOL.
And a quick peak at today's pirating rate would suggest an opposite trend
too.

TC

tonycook

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 3:19:59 PM9/8/02
to

"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:amblnusakmeb7jju9...@news.xtra.co.nz...

> In message <aldulp$sm9$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
> <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:o5linu4m666ko4m6h...@news.xtra.co.nz...

> >> The information government
> >> departments have is statistical information at the meshblock level
> >> (about 250 people) only.
> >
> >Census information is *available* in any form they want it.
> >I think an ex cabinet minister would know better than you.
> >You are not the end all and be all of NZ census information
> >and you have been in error numerous times now.
>
> The information I posted from the Statistics New Zealand site was
> pretty straight-forward and backed up what I said.

Oh, I agree with your above statement as far as it goes.
But that is not the whole story.
Also, and more importantly, governments can't be expected
to plan for the future with no relevant information.

(snipped)


> >> :: The law protects the information you provide. It must be used only
for
> >> :: statistical purposes. The census provides information about groups
of
> >> :: people, not individuals.
> >
> >And that's all the televote system will do too.
> >Nothing different from what is done now except the advanced
> >technology and greater inputting potentials.
>
> Does this mean that you're retracting your statement about "census
> profiles"?

No.
As I understand it, all census statements are specially encoded and entered
into the televote data base.
But whenever public stats are required no individual's file is ever ID'd as
such.
The stats are always produced in numbered/percentage formats - as they are
now.

> What do you mean by "greater inputting potentials"? Statistics New
> Zealand already subjects the census data to plenty of technology.
> That's their job. I don't know what "advanced technology" you could
> add.

The potential to use the televote system for various public surveys is
vast -
plus there is separate inputting by 12-17 year olds which could be valuable
for specific areas too.

> >(snipped)
> >> :: Incidentally every voter has his/her census profile in the televote
> >> :: database
> >> :: so that extrapolation of all manner of different stats can easily be
> >> :: obtained.
> >
> >Correct.
> >But in a totally unreadable format as I 've explained.
>
> If it can be used by the machine, it can be extracted.

Nope.
Not possible either legally or illegally.
Anyway - individual files are not much use to planners.
They need overall numbers/percentages.

> >> Ah yes, the impossibly perfect "unhackable system". Nobody buys it,
> >> Tony.
> >
> >Is that so.
> >I'd like to see your evidence of that.
>
> Trot over to nz.comp and outline your "unhackable" system there.
> You'll get all the evidence you want.

LOL.
Oh yeah - sure.
Don't think so somehow.
They won't have even heard of our televote security system.
I did point out it was classified - or had you forgotten?


TC

tonycook

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 3:54:16 PM9/8/02
to

"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1kblnu4di87ifs96j...@news.xtra.co.nz...

> In message <aldulq$sm9$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
> <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >Well that's a similar situation this system provides - yet it still
> >obtains *all* and *only* the information it needs.
> >I have to admit it's slightly brilliant.
>
> Tony, you've already proved your ignorance of referenda results,
> census and survey procedures and statistics.

LOL.
It's interesting the way you always award yourself debating points.
It indicates your strangely blinkered/misconcieved view of the world
which you obviously believe must either conform to your views or be
rubbished (by you) accordingly.
Apart from *all* the errors/misconceptions being yours, not mine, you
not having the information that I have, I simply haven't had the time or
the inclination to sort them all out.
But that doesn't mean I concede anything - and certainly don't.

> Somehow I don't think
> your say-so on IT security carries much weight. *All* of these are
> areas I have some experience with,

Oh dear.
Yes your highness.
Only you - have all the answers.
Give me a break!

> and you have... gut feeling,
> wishful thinking and the say-so of a marketing guy for the security
> system? How gullible are you?

Hmm, not very - I'm afraid.
Such technical decisions are not made by me.
They're made by world renown computer experts that would be
quite a bit ahead of you.
It's interesting that the only opposing position you seem to rely on
is trying to rubbish me personally.
Doesn't say much for your debating skills which are practically non
existent anyway.

You know very well I'm just trying to give a partial overview of
what one could expect from the televote security system for which,
being a classified item, I'm not able to submit all sorts of technical
details.
So you use this situation to try to undermine my portrayal - by
claiming an absence of said facts which you already know I'm not
able to submit.
This - combined with your personal attack on me is not clever -
and makes you look like the silly ass that you obviously must be.
I have received quite a number of emails from Superdem members
to this effect - and asking me not to discuss it with you any further.
I have resisted this for some time now - because over a period of
time you have *sometimes* made quite significant sense/contribution.
However, you're obviously going to remain pig-headed over
this issue - so I'll now leave you to it.
The proof of the pudding will be in the eating - and I will enjoy seeing
you eating your words one day.


TC

R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 5:58:29 PM9/8/02
to
In message <alg663$o2q$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
<tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

Pirating *adds* to the evidence that the marketing works to alter
preferences.

R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 5:58:30 PM9/8/02
to
In message <alga0a$qmb$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
<tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:1kblnu4di87ifs96j...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>> In message <aldulq$sm9$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
>> <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >Well that's a similar situation this system provides - yet it still
>> >obtains *all* and *only* the information it needs.
>> >I have to admit it's slightly brilliant.
>>
>> Tony, you've already proved your ignorance of referenda results,
>> census and survey procedures and statistics.
>
>LOL.
>It's interesting the way you always award yourself debating points.

I don't see anyone else objecting. I am after all the one who is
producing evidence to back my position up. Until you produce some
evidence to the contrary, I think it's reasonable to claim the
superior position.

>It indicates your strangely blinkered/misconcieved view of the world
>which you obviously believe must either conform to your views or be
>rubbished (by you) accordingly.

You are the one on your own here, Tony. I have been looking up
independent sources and posting the supporting evidence. Go and check
it for yourself. the evidence supports me about the census. It
supports me about the referendum results. It supports me about survey
best practice. It supports me about the NZES findings.

Where's your evidence? All I've seen is claims that nameless "experts"
said something once that you now rely on. Why should we believe the
rest of your experts are any more reliable than those who gave you the
false and self-serving referendum statistics? Who should people
believe - Tony's unnamed "experts" or information published by the
electoral agencies and New Zealand's leading political scientists?

>Apart from *all* the errors/misconceptions being yours, not mine, you
>not having the information that I have, I simply haven't had the time or
>the inclination to sort them all out.
>But that doesn't mean I concede anything - and certainly don't.

You can hide your head in the sand all you like. It doesn't make you
right.

>> Somehow I don't think
>> your say-so on IT security carries much weight. *All* of these are

>> areas I have some experience with, and you have... gut feeling,


>> wishful thinking and the say-so of a marketing guy for the security
>> system? How gullible are you?
>
>Hmm, not very - I'm afraid.
>Such technical decisions are not made by me.
>They're made by world renown computer experts that would be
>quite a bit ahead of you.

Let's have some names and publications then. Where's the evidence?

>You know very well I'm just trying to give a partial overview of
>what one could expect from the televote security system for which,
>being a classified item, I'm not able to submit all sorts of technical
>details.
>So you use this situation to try to undermine my portrayal - by
>claiming an absence of said facts which you already know I'm not
>able to submit.

Of course you're *able* to. You just choose not to. If you continue to
choose not to, you're always going to come up against this kind of
resistence - especially if you continue to claim perfection.

tonycook

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 7:05:38 PM9/8/02
to

"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:b7gnnukb1jhf0m7ht...@news.xtra.co.nz...

> In message <alg663$o2q$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
> <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >"Matt Ledgerwood" <le...@nat.matrx.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:ale01a$s7i$5...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >> tonycook <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >>
> >> > You can't *buy* everybody Stumpy - no matter how many bucks you've
got -
> >>
> >> A quick peak at today's music charts would suggest otherwise.
> >
> >LOL.
> >And a quick peak at today's pirating rate would suggest an opposite trend
> >too.
>
> Pirating *adds* to the evidence that the marketing works to alter
> preferences.


Oh it always pays to advertise.
I doubt many would argue with that.
But that's got absolutely nothing to do with straight out theft.


TC

Matt Ledgerwood

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 7:50:42 PM9/8/02
to
tonycook <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

and yet again you miss the point. Popular music is mostly
rubbish and has little in the way of redeeming features.
Yet people still buy/download this crap because of the marketing.


tonycook

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 3:16:23 PM9/9/02
to

"Matt Ledgerwood" <le...@nat.matrx.co.nz> wrote in message
news:algnoi$60o$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...

> tonycook <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >> > You can't *buy* everybody Stumpy - no matter how many bucks you've
got -
> >>
> >> A quick peak at today's music charts would suggest otherwise.
>
> > LOL.
> > And a quick peak at today's pirating rate would suggest an opposite
trend
> > too.
>
> and yet again you miss the point. Popular music is mostly
> rubbish and has little in the way of redeeming features.

But that's only your opinion/preference.
Many many others would certainly disagree with you -
having been in the music and performing business myself.

> Yet people still buy/download this crap because of the marketing.

People are entitled to indulge in their own legal and preferred delights
as long as they pay for it.
But I'm totally opposed to piracy and theft of rightful owners' talents
and skills though.
Any commodity has to be marketed to sell in numbers and thus
justify its production costs and a reasonable profitability.
To suggest otherwise is just commercial naivity.


TC

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The NZ Super Democratic Party's Website is:
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~tonycook/nzsdp/ or
http://www.devcentre.org/nzsdp (Join the mailing list.)
<<<< Dare to be Superdemocratic >>>>


Matt Ledgerwood

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 5:32:08 PM9/9/02
to
tonycook <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> "Matt Ledgerwood" <le...@nat.matrx.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:algnoi$60o$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> tonycook <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >> > You can't *buy* everybody Stumpy - no matter how many bucks you've
> got -
>> >>
>> >> A quick peak at today's music charts would suggest otherwise.
>>
>> > LOL.
>> > And a quick peak at today's pirating rate would suggest an opposite
> trend
>> > too.
>>
>> and yet again you miss the point. Popular music is mostly
>> rubbish and has little in the way of redeeming features.

> But that's only your opinion/preference.
> Many many others would certainly disagree with you -
> having been in the music and performing business myself.

So what, apart from her tits, are the redeeming
features of Britney Spears? i'm truly curious.

>> Yet people still buy/download this crap because of the marketing.

> People are entitled to indulge in their own legal and preferred delights
> as long as they pay for it.
> But I'm totally opposed to piracy and theft of rightful owners' talents
> and skills though.

I agree, except that artists are screwed over far worse
by the record companies than any individual "pirate"

> Any commodity has to be marketed to sell in numbers and thus
> justify its production costs and a reasonable profitability.

Record releases can be profitable at far smaller
volumes than the biggest artists sell at, otherwise
there would be no indie labels, no jazz/classical/
insert other low selling style here releases.

> To suggest otherwise is just commercial naivity.

> --

tonycook

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 7:42:07 PM9/9/02
to

"Matt Ledgerwood" <le...@nat.matrx.co.nz> wrote in message
news:alj40o$d0l$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> tonycook <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

Matt wrote:
> >> Popular music is mostly
> >> rubbish and has little in the way of redeeming features.
>
> > But that's only your opinion/preference.
> > Many many others would certainly disagree with you -
> > having been in the music and performing business myself.
>
> So what, apart from her tits, are the redeeming
> features of Britney Spears? i'm truly curious.

LOL.
I'll bet you are - but I have no idea.
Who's Britney Spears?
A new generation icon perhaps?
You obviously know more about her up-front talents than I do.

> >> Yet people still buy/download this crap because of the marketing.
>
> > People are entitled to indulge in their own legal and preferred delights
> > as long as they pay for it.
> > But I'm totally opposed to piracy and theft of rightful owners' talents
> > and skills though.
>
> I agree, except that artists are screwed over far worse
> by the record companies than any individual "pirate"

*They* call it negotiation.
But in a way I guess it's partly justified.
They're the ones taking the punt and bank-rolling the deals.
Many punts don't make it - and sometimes cost plenty too.
It's a fickle game and only the real survivors make it.
As Bill Gates says "If you think life is fair - it's not. So get used to
it."
Well - even if life's not fair - it could at least be a lot more democratic.
It'd still not be ideal - but at least a worthwhile improvement IMO.

America is preparing to go to war with Iraq to boost its economy
and its world power status.
The American people cannot stop their elected dictatorship from
doing this - just as we couldn't either.
And as long as we all keep subscribing to our currently outdated
and almost totally undemocratic political system - the wars won't
stop and the kids won't get fed.
Not much of a future - yet we all have the power to alter it - if we
just realised that more democracy and less dictatorship is all that's
required.

> > Any commodity has to be marketed to sell in numbers and thus
> > justify its production costs and a reasonable profitability.
>
> Record releases can be profitable at far smaller
> volumes than the biggest artists sell at, otherwise
> there would be no indie labels, no jazz/classical/
> insert other low selling style here releases.

The high rollers mostly off-set the losses on the lesser
sellers.
It's very much a game of swings and roundabouts.
Major labels like to "appear" to be all embracing,
and the specialists usually struggle to survive.

But in any event marketing is always the key.
The NZSDP would never expect Superdemocracy to
either work or even be accepted without a high powered
carefully controlled marketing package (the prior three
monthly prime time TV/Radio/Press uncensored uncut promos)
to constantly market and promote it.
By the same token the NZSDP would not support the banning of
other marketing programmes, or press comment, just as long as
the public clearly know *which* marketing is the unexpurgated
NZTC version.
Thus *all* versions are available to the public - and freedom of
expression is unhindered.

TC

R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 11:13:46 PM9/9/02
to
In message <alis1v$8cl$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
<tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>> Yet people still buy/download this crap because of the marketing.
>
>People are entitled to indulge in their own legal and preferred delights
>as long as they pay for it.
>But I'm totally opposed to piracy and theft of rightful owners' talents
>and skills though.

Nice squirm, Tony. Focus on the peripheral issue so you don't have to
address the point.

>Any commodity has to be marketed to sell in numbers and thus
>justify its production costs and a reasonable profitability.

Including policies. And like any other commodity, the better the
marketing, the higher the sales. Quality plays a part, but well
marketed crap will always sell better than poorly marketed quality -
look at Britney Spears, McDonalds, Microsoft, etc. Especially if the
up-front price is lower - never mind that it costs more in the long
run.

That's not a major problem when the only harm done by the people
buying the crap is to themselves, but when their buying it imposes it
on everyone else...

tonycook

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 3:50:55 PM9/10/02
to

"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5poqnugcf7mp7mfmq...@news.xtra.co.nz...

> In message <alis1v$8cl$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "tonycook"
> <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >> Yet people still buy/download this crap because of the marketing.
> >
> >People are entitled to indulge in their own legal and preferred delights
> >as long as they pay for it.
> >But I'm totally opposed to piracy and theft of rightful owners' talents
> >and skills though.
>
> Nice squirm, Tony. Focus on the peripheral issue so you don't have to
> address the point.

I have not avoided the point at all.
I'm perfectly aware that attractive marketing reeps its rewards/influence.
That's why the Televote system would not be without it.
If it was - it would surely fail.
But that's not an excuse to ban others who might want to advertise their
point of view separately from the NZTC promo system.
I can't think why they would want to - when the NZTC system would do it
uncut and uncensored for free - but they might.
As long as there is a clear distinction between those that are produced by
the NZTC and those that are produced privately - I have no objections.
Just as I have an aversion to democracy being stifled - I also have an
aversion to freedom of speech/expression being stifled too.

> >Any commodity has to be marketed to sell in numbers and thus
> >justify its production costs and a reasonable profitability.
>
> Including policies.

Absolutely.

> And like any other commodity, the better the
> marketing, the higher the sales.

That's not *necessarily* so with political issues -
but I agree - it *can* be so.
All human decisions are able to be influenced in some way
by others and other influences.
They are also coloured by culture, upbringing, religion, moral
principles etc. etc.
But it is this thrust and parry that prompts serious thinking
and more extended evaluations.
It's partly why democratic process is the best decision maker.
Currently this process is almost totally stifled and urgently needs
to be freed from its dictatorial shackled status.

> Quality plays a part, but well
> marketed crap will always sell better than poorly marketed quality -

I disagree entirely.
Your statement is totally judgemental and just your opinion.
You may think it's crap but obviously the buyers don't.
And *that's* who and what counts.

> look at Britney Spears, McDonalds, Microsoft, etc. Especially if the
> up-front price is lower - never mind that it costs more in the long
> run.

That's for individuals to make their own decisions/choices,
not for you or I to decide for them.
Please don't *tell* people what they should or should not buy -
in your opinion - because that's what you're trying to do.
Realise it and back off - it's absolutely none of your business.
Just as you are - and should be - free to campaign with your DRP
crap - others must be free to do likewise with theirs.

> That's not a major problem when the only harm done by the people
> buying the crap is to themselves, but when their buying it imposes it
> on everyone else...

I'm sorry we were all born and obviously are everlastingly in your way.
In this life you have to take the good with the bad.
You have to accept that people just might not be as discerning
as you would like them to be - but they all have just as much right as you
or I to be influenced by clever marketing and still make their own choices.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this process whatsoever.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages