Pericles,

The Australian Academy of Sciences (at least when they backed the 1994 report) would no doubt be surprised to find that they lack logic and common sense (in your exalted opinion), since their views on stabilising the population were exactly the same as mine and Ludwig's.

http://www.science.org.au/events/sats/sats1994/Population2040-section8.pdf

• "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
- Upton Sinclair

No problem with that, Divergence.

>>...their views on stabilising the population were exactly the same as mine and Ludwig's<<

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even scientists.

The interesting thing about that report is that there is not a single representative of business, nor a single economist, on the panel of Contributors. It is further evidence that folk who are supported by the public purse - especially those who have tenure, and don't actually have much to do - have substantially different views to those who are practical and pragmatic value-creators.

Altogether, the cast list was a perfect example of the quote you provided.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

A quick glance at the vested interests of those good people on the panel is a great illustration of how their wages influenced their opinions.

http://www.science.org.au/events/sats/sats1994/Population2040-section1.pdf

Classic.

Doesn't follow, Pericles. The scientists don't get more money if they come out against population growth, but the businessmen do, if they come out for it and persuade the politicians. In any case, you don't seem to appreciate that if you trash your environment, you also trash your economy. The Sumerians didn't have much of an economy when they destroyed their fields with salinisation and their city states collapsed.

Asking a businessman or economist if, say, global warming is a real phenomenon is about as intelligent as asking a biologist about whether the Federal Reserve should increase interest rates.

You might do a thought experiment on what the economy would be like if there had been no scientists over the past 200 years.

I take it Pericles that by your non-mention of anything further about cutting big business out of the loop, you have conceded that eliminating the bias is indeed a bloody long way removed from cutting them out of the loop.

What an embarrassing faux pas, or I should say; deliberate false assertion of my position. It would be nice if you’ve learned your lesson and ceased and desisted from doing that sort of thing anymore.

<< There are "right" and "wrong" reasons for being on this forum? >>

I think that you would find that your repeated false assertions about the opinions and positions of those with whom you disagree does indeed amount to being on this forum for the wrong reasons.

Yes, OLO is about expressing opinions, and then it’s about those opinions being respected and debated… and certainly not deliberately misrepresented.

Now, how’s this for a doozy of a contradiction. You say:

<< I was under the impression that it is an opinion forum >>

And then…

<< …you frequently write a heap of unmitigated rot… >>

Well, say no more – you appreciate OLO as a place for expressing opinions and then you demonstrate complete intolerance of any opinions therein expressed that are different to yours. Or am I somehow misreading your comments?

<< As for your ideas as to the increased level of fairness we can expect from OPV, I thank you for the link, but would gently point out that it was completely empty of any illumination. >>

Why am I not surprised. What you are saying is that these statements of mine from the post that I referred you to mean nothing to you:

<< …anyone who understands that their vote can be STOLEN AND PLACED WHERE THE VOTER DOESN’T WANT IT TO COUNT, can’t vote… and simply HAS to lodge a blank ballot paper! >>

<< And anyone who doesn’t understand this and who wants to vote against the entrenched Liblab continuous-growth antisustainability paradigm CAN’T DO IT! They effectively vote FOR the continuation of this paradigm!! >>

continued

<< It could not be more disgusting or more diametrically opposite to democracy, or to the very principle and purpose of voting! >>

You say:

This post << was completely empty of any illumination >>

What does that mean? Does it mean you already knew this stuff, or that you have learnt something but it has caused your eyes to glaze over?

You would have picked this to shreds if you could have. So, you either agree totally with me… or you don’t know whether I’m right or not or you don't give a hoot!

<< Explain again, if you will, how the change in voting requirement from CPV to OPV will automatically guarantee more effective representation. >>

Have done. If you don’t get it from my emphatic statements, then I’ll have to conclude that you are indeed really really stupid…. or worse: that you actually applaud a voting system that can and does misrepresent some voters!

Here’s one further hint – better representation could just maybe possibly be linked to a voting system that indicates the true intent of the voters, and doesn’t take the votes of some voters and place them under the names of candidates / parties that the voters don’t want to vote for or even specifically want to vote against!

But as I have also said, it is hard to know what effect it will have.

It is but one small reform that would go in line with a better quality of governance and a better likelihood of us achieving a much brighter future than what we are likely to get with the continuation of the current political paradigm.

<< The CPU vs OPV debate is a red herring. The Libs are currently toying with a change because, and only because, they think it will give them an electoral advantage. Hardly an ethical stance but then why would they break the habits of a lifetime and do something because it was the right thing to do. >>

Yes James, the powers that be have implemented the system that they feel will give them an advantage. They are indeed unscrupulous.

I agree with you that FPTP is a whole lot better than CPV, but disagree that it would be better than OPV.

<< [Pericles] I agree with most of what you say, except to query why you expend time and energy responding to Divergence, Ludwig and their ilk. You are not going to persuade them of anything and the entertainment value is a diminishing value. >>

I wonder how much of a realistic impression you have of my overall position (can’t speak for Divergence) and how much you have been misled by the polarising statements of Pericles, who constantly makes my position out to be at the end of the spectrum rather than a change in the point of balance between various factors.

So, in the interests of us understanding each other better, could you outline your primary concerns with my position as it relates to the subject of this thread. Thanks.