OT (for some 'groups) - third attempt at balance petition

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

With apologies to those 'groups in which this isn't appropriate.

I've finally (they took their time!) received a reply from the petitions
jobsworths, saying they'd accept the following (after they rejected my
first two attempts, on the IMO incorrect grounds that I hadn't made
clear what final outcome I was after). It's a _much_ more limited
version than what I wanted, but if it's the only way it's going to see
the light of day, I guess we'd better go with it - we can then expand if
we ever get anywhere (which I doubt - the establishment doesn't like
balance, it's harder to deal with). I need five supporters before
they'll even release it. So if you can click, I'd be most obliged ...
(and of course forward to anyone you think might agree!)
[]

I've made a petition – will you sign it?

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770/sponsors/new?token=WeHH6XMoNXGJHv7bnVW8

Replace petition.parliament.uk with a site that collects votes for and
against
Frequently, petitions and similar are reported as having collected so
many thousand votes. This only represents one side: without knowing how
strong the opposing feeling is, the true public opinion can be
misreported - and, decision-makers can be pushed into actions the
majority don't actually want.
A petition is arguably the modern version of the pitchfork-wielding
mob; it's very easy for individuals or groups to whip up strong
feelings. Those opposing the motion feel disenfranchised - there is no
*simple* and *immediate* way to register their opposition; they can
only set up a counter-petition, which is liable to be rejected, or at
least involves a delay, thus giving unfair advantage to the first petition.
--

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770/sponsors/new?token=WeHH6XMoNXGJHv7bnVW8

[Guy Barry]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
With apologies to those 'groups in which this isn't appropriate.

Replace petition.parliament.uk with a site that collects votes for and
against
Frequently, petitions and similar are reported as having collected so
many thousand votes. This only represents one side: without knowing
how strong the opposing feeling is, the true public opinion can be
misreported - and, decision-makers can be pushed into actions the
majority don't actually want.
 A petition is arguably the modern version of the pitchfork-wielding
mob; it's very easy for individuals or groups to whip up strong
feelings. Those opposing the motion feel disenfranchised - there is no
*simple* and *immediate* way to register their opposition; they can
only set up a counter-petition, which is liable to be rejected, or at
least involves a delay, thus giving unfair advantage to the first petition.

I'm opposed to your petition. Where do I sign?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Guy Barry

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
With apologies to those 'groups in which this isn't appropriate.

Replace petition.parliament.uk with a site that collects votes for and
against
Frequently, petitions and similar are reported as having collected
so many thousand votes. This only represents one side: without
knowing how strong the opposing feeling is, the true public opinion
can be misreported - and, decision-makers can be pushed into actions
the majority don't actually want.
 A petition is arguably the modern version of the pitchfork-wielding
mob; it's very easy for individuals or groups to whip up strong
feelings. Those opposing the motion feel disenfranchised - there is
no *simple* and *immediate* way to register their opposition; they
can only set up a counter-petition, which is liable to be rejected,
or at least involves a delay, thus giving unfair advantage to the
first petition.

I'm opposed to your petition. Where do I sign?

I assume you're being humorous, but for those who don't see the joke:

That's part of my point - nowhere (-:. If my petition were to be
implemented, you would have somewhere. Therefore even those who are
opposed should still sign!

[Guy Barry]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

I'm opposed to your petition.  Where do I sign?

That's part of my point - nowhere (-:. If my petition were to be
implemented, you would have somewhere. Therefore even those who are
opposed should still sign!

But I'm opposed to your petition. I *don't* agree that petitions should
carry the signatures of those who disagree.

If your petition is successful, you will have no way of knowing how many
people are opposed to it, and so by your own logic it should be
disregarded. Hoist by your own petard!

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Guy Barry

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

I'm opposed to your petition.  Where do I sign?

That's part of my point - nowhere (-:. If my petition were to be
implemented, you would have somewhere. Therefore even those who are
opposed should still sign!

But I'm opposed to your petition. I *don't* agree that petitions
should carry the signatures of those who disagree.

What would _you_ reply to the statement that, currently, those who
disagree with a petition have nowhere to register their disagreement?

Post by Guy Barry
If your petition is successful, you will have no way of knowing how
many people are opposed to it, and so by your own logic it should be
disregarded. Hoist by your own petard!

Yes, I may be the last to win by the unfair system I'm trying to end (-:
[Strictly, it should be "hoised", though the "hoist" form is commoner
now. A Petard was a small bomb or grenade.]

[Guy Barry]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

But I'm opposed to your petition.  I *don't* agree that petitions
should carry the signatures of those who disagree.

What would _you_ reply to the statement that, currently, those who
disagree with a petition have nowhere to register their disagreement?

Exactly the same thing as I said last time. Is there any point in going
round this again?

[Guy Barry]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

But I'm opposed to your petition.  I *don't* agree that petitions
should carry the signatures of those who disagree.

What would _you_ reply to the statement that, currently, those who
disagree with a petition have nowhere to register their disagreement?

Exactly the same thing as I said last time.  Is there any point in going
round this again?

My apologies - I neglected to note that this thread was crossposted.
Here's the post that I was referring to:

<hMusD.355637$***@fx44.am4>

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Guy Barry

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

But I'm opposed to your petition.  I *don't* agree that petitions
should carry the signatures of those who disagree.

What would _you_ reply to the statement that, currently, those who
disagree with a petition have nowhere to register their disagreement?

Exactly the same thing as I said last time. Is there any point in
going round this again?

Probably not. Unfortunately, at present, you have nowhere to register
your objection to my petition - other than starting one of your own, of
course, which you are welcome to do.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Guy Barry

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

But I'm opposed to your petition.  I *don't* agree that petitions
should carry the signatures of those who disagree.

What would _you_ reply to the statement that, currently, those who
disagree with a petition have nowhere to register their disagreement?

Exactly the same thing as I said last time. Is there any point in
going round this again?

You said you disagreed that a petition should also record the numbers
who disagree. That is a tenable position, but I ask: what is the purpose
of a petition? If it's to show (whoever you hand it to) that X people
support it, don't you think its _credibility_ is undermined by only
showing that? Obviously you don't. But personally, if someone handed me
a petition showing "X people feel this", I'd give it less _credibility_
if I thought those organising it didn't _dare_ to see what the
opposition is.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Probably not. Unfortunately, at present, you have nowhere to register
your objection to my petition - other than starting one of your own, of
course, which you are welcome to do.

I haven't _heard_ of your counter-petition yet (-:


https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770
Fair petitions? See 255soft.uk; #fairpetitions @jpeg_G6
--
4-way STV referendum: no deal, Barnier deal (NI stays), May deal, or remain?

[Andy Burns]

If you're going that far, with all the attendant voter education, why
not throw the kitchen sink at it? Add in Norway, Canada++ options

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
no deal, Barnier deal (NI stays), May deal, or remain?

remain plus join Schengen & Euro ...

[Brian Gaff]

Erm, what is your beef? Its a free country, if you care so much, then do one
yourself.
Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

If you're going that far, with all the attendant voter education, why not
throw the kitchen sink at it? Add in Norway, Canada++ options

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
no deal, Barnier deal (NI stays), May deal, or remain?

remain plus join Schengen & Euro ...

[Andy Burns]

if you care so much, then do one yourself.

If I was going to do one, it would be to decommission the
petitions.gov.uk service

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Andy Burns

if you care so much, then do one yourself.

If I was going to do one, it would be to decommission the
petitions.gov.uk service

No harm in trying (-:! If only to gall the petitions commission, who
would have to try _very_ hard not to be seen to be not allowing your
petition purely on the grounds that it would end their existence ...


Fair petitions? See 255soft.uk; #fairpetitions @jpeg_G6;
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770
--
4-way STV referendum: no deal, Barnier deal (NI stays), May deal, or remain?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Andy Burns
If you're going that far, with all the attendant voter education, why
not throw the kitchen sink at it? Add in Norway, Canada++ options

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
no deal, Barnier deal (NI stays), May deal, or remain?

remain plus join Schengen & Euro ...

AFAIAC, the more the merrier; I limited it to four as I can see from
previous attempts to introduce it that the British public (as a whole,
not those here) don't understand STV and are quite hostile towards it,
and I thought four was the most that might happen. (I had actually been
saying three - May, no, or remain - until about last weekend when M.
Barnier suggested [or repeated the suggestion of] the
treat-Northern-Ireland-differently option.)

There might be practical problems doing an STV with more than three or
four options over such a huge constituency; I had imagined that in
practice the counting stations would count locally the various
combinations (1234, 1423, 4213, -123, -12-, and so on) and report these
in to a central clearing house, and that that would sort out the
transferring. With every extra option offered, the number of possible
arrangements goes up a lot. Even four options gives 24 possible
sequences for people who choose their top 3, plus more (12 I think) for
those who only choose 2 or (4) 1.

In practice, I very much doubt that an STV second referendum would
happen. If any second referendum happens at all, I can only see it as
being another two-choice one - which IMO would be pretty disastrous,
because what would the choices be?

If purely the same as the first time ("leave or remain"): if it went
remain, that would indeed be the end of it, but with approximately half
the population (slightly more or slightly less) absolutely furious (to
the extent of possible genuine civil unrest); if it went leave again,
we'd be back where we are now.

If it was "remain or leave with Mrs. May's deal?" ...

If it was "remain or leave with no deal?" ...

If it was "we're leaving anyway; no deal or Mrs. May's deal?" ...

I suppose you could have _two_ two-choice ones, but I think the only way
that would be acceptable would be the first one a "remain or leave" as
before, but with it being _definite_ that if it went "leave" again,
there would be a second one for "May's or no". But if you were going to
do that, you might as well have a three-way STV one anyway.

JPG
---


Fair petitions? See 255soft.uk; #fairpetitions @jpeg_G6
--
4-way STV referendum: no deal, Barnier deal (NI stays), May deal, or remain?

[Mark]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 20:00:21 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Andy Burns
If you're going that far, with all the attendant voter education, why
not throw the kitchen sink at it? Add in Norway, Canada++ options

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
no deal, Barnier deal (NI stays), May deal, or remain?

remain plus join Schengen & Euro ...

AFAIAC, the more the merrier; I limited it to four as I can see from
previous attempts to introduce it that the British public (as a whole,
not those here) don't understand STV and are quite hostile towards it,

I'm sure most do not understand STV (and AV) and we have already seen
the hostility. In fact I don't think you mean STV since this is a
system for resolving elections in multi-seat consituencies.

What you're really referring to (IMHO) is AV. i.e. People can rank
their choices in order of prioirity, rather than just have the option
to pick one option.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
and I thought four was the most that might happen. (I had actually been
saying three - May, no, or remain - until about last weekend when M.
Barnier suggested [or repeated the suggestion of] the
treat-Northern-Ireland-differently option.)
There might be practical problems doing an STV with more than three or
four options over such a huge constituency; I had imagined that in
practice the counting stations would count locally the various
combinations (1234, 1423, 4213, -123, -12-, and so on) and report these
in to a central clearing house, and that that would sort out the
transferring. With every extra option offered, the number of possible
arrangements goes up a lot. Even four options gives 24 possible
sequences for people who choose their top 3, plus more (12 I think) for
those who only choose 2 or (4) 1.
In practice, I very much doubt that an STV second referendum would
happen. If any second referendum happens at all, I can only see it as
being another two-choice one - which IMO would be pretty disastrous,
because what would the choices be?
If purely the same as the first time ("leave or remain"): if it went
remain, that would indeed be the end of it, but with approximately half
the population (slightly more or slightly less) absolutely furious (to
the extent of possible genuine civil unrest); if it went leave again,
we'd be back where we are now.
If it was "remain or leave with Mrs. May's deal?" ...
If it was "remain or leave with no deal?" ...
If it was "we're leaving anyway; no deal or Mrs. May's deal?" ...
I suppose you could have _two_ two-choice ones, but I think the only way
that would be acceptable would be the first one a "remain or leave" as
before, but with it being _definite_ that if it went "leave" again,
there would be a second one for "May's or no". But if you were going to
do that, you might as well have a three-way STV one anyway.
JPG
---
--
4-way STV referendum: no deal, Barnier deal (NI stays), May deal, or remain?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Mark
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 20:00:21 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Andy Burns
If you're going that far, with all the attendant voter education, why
not throw the kitchen sink at it? Add in Norway, Canada++ options

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
no deal, Barnier deal (NI stays), May deal, or remain?

remain plus join Schengen & Euro ...

AFAIAC, the more the merrier; I limited it to four as I can see from
previous attempts to introduce it that the British public (as a whole,
not those here) don't understand STV and are quite hostile towards it,

I'm sure most do not understand STV (and AV) and we have already seen
the hostility. In fact I don't think you mean STV since this is a
system for resolving elections in multi-seat consituencies.
What you're really referring to (IMHO) is AV. i.e. People can rank
their choices in order of prioirity, rather than just have the option
to pick one option.

That's what I meant, yes. I thought that was STV: your single vote is
transferred to your second choice if your first choice is eliminated.
But there's just as much hostility to it, whatever it's called; anything
other than this non-existent "post" system is beyond the comprehension -
or, willingness to even _try_ - of the majority, so we'll continue to
have unrepresentative government (and referenda, and so on) for the
foreseeable future.

(Actually, transferrable voting could actually be called FPTP - it does
at least _have_ a post, at 50% I think.)

Post by Mark

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
and I thought four was the most that might happen. (I had actually been
saying three - May, no, or remain - until about last weekend when M.
Barnier suggested [or repeated the suggestion of] the
treat-Northern-Ireland-differently option.)
There might be practical problems doing an STV with more than three or
four options over such a huge constituency; I had imagined that in
practice the counting stations would count locally the various
combinations (1234, 1423, 4213, -123, -12-, and so on) and report these
in to a central clearing house, and that that would sort out the
transferring. With every extra option offered, the number of possible
arrangements goes up a lot. Even four options gives 24 possible
sequences for people who choose their top 3, plus more (12 I think) for
those who only choose 2 or (4) 1.
In practice, I very much doubt that an STV second referendum would
happen. If any second referendum happens at all, I can only see it as
being another two-choice one - which IMO would be pretty disastrous,
because what would the choices be?
If purely the same as the first time ("leave or remain"): if it went
remain, that would indeed be the end of it, but with approximately half
the population (slightly more or slightly less) absolutely furious (to
the extent of possible genuine civil unrest); if it went leave again,
we'd be back where we are now.
If it was "remain or leave with Mrs. May's deal?" ...
If it was "remain or leave with no deal?" ...
If it was "we're leaving anyway; no deal or Mrs. May's deal?" ...
I suppose you could have _two_ two-choice ones, but I think the only way
that would be acceptable would be the first one a "remain or leave" as
before, but with it being _definite_ that if it went "leave" again,
there would be a second one for "May's or no". But if you were going to
do that, you might as well have a three-way STV one anyway.
JPG
---

Fair petitions? See 255soft.uk; #fairpetitions @jpeg_G6;
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770
--
4-way STV referendum: no deal, Barnier deal (NI stays), May deal, or remain?