Monday, May 28, 2007

Vote Pommygranate, Colin and the Englishman

Pommygranate's in some sort of antipodaean blogpoll just now. Could you get over there and give him a click?

UPDATE AND APOLOGY

I think I've made a huge mistake here and misled everyone. You see, late last evening, very tired, I went over to Pommygranate and there was a beleagured appeal. I didn't check it through but immediately saw one of our Blogpowerers in trouble, clicked on his link and saw him in a list and no one else we knew.

Hence the rallying cry to vote for him.

However, this morning I was posting on Blogpower, scrolled down and saw this on Colin Campbell's post:

Featured this time are Pommygranate and myself, along with some other Bloggy Aussies and the Englishmans take on nude car washes in Brisbane.

Penny dropped that perhaps this was the SAME poll as Colin and the Englishman and hence Colin's anguished:

For a libertarian, this is unmitigated ballot stuffing. That with envelopes of cash, we have the potential for a rorted election. All this in the cause of supporting our libertarian friend.

To which I, thinking Colin was only kidding, replied:

Unmitigated ballot-stuffing - all hail to corruption, Colin and I voted for him as a fellow blogpowerer, not as a Zambesi Liberation Force supporter or Golden Labrador Owners club nominee or whatever.

Now, in the light of what I know - that in this poll were also Colin and the Englishman, I'm looking for a giant hole to fall down and end my misery. Oh, woe is me! What have I done?

OK, to repair this, I'm heading over to Colins's and the Englishman's sites now to find out how I can register votes for them.

The question is, will you join me and visit these boys and give them your vote too?

UPDATE UPDATE:

Now it gets even more confusing. Lord Nazh and Pommygranate inform us that the polls are separate and anyway, I can't find anywhere on their sites to vote for them - no link. Can someone set me straight on this thing?

16 comments:

Welshcakes Limoncello said...

Aah, love him, I did! [vote for him, I mean!]

Jeremy Jacobs said...

and what has Pommygranate ever done for us?

mutleythedog said...

I am a bit surprised never to have been nominated for any prizes on the internet -I voted for Mr Granate despite the fact that I have not the slightest idea what it is for. I shall hope for similar loyalty if I am ever nominated for something....

pommygranate said...

Welshcakes - i love you too!

Jeremy - think of it as an investment for the future.

Mutley - being a technophobe, i still dont know how to include the new BlogPower memebers on my blogroll. Any hints James?

Mutley - consider my loyalty blind.

Nazh - thanks for the vote.

James - thanks for the plug. Hail the power of BlogPower!

Reactionary Snob said...

Done and dusted, James. Best of luck, Pom.

RS

Colin Campbell said...

For a libertarian, this is unmitigated ballot stuffing. That with envelopes of cash, we have the potential for a rorted election. All this in the cause of supporting our libertarian friend.

Pommygranate. The easiest way to keep up to date with the blogroll is to install blogrolling. It is very easy. You can just copy the code from any other blogpowerers. That way you will have the same blogroll as everyone else.

james higham said...

Unmitigated ballot-stuffing - all hail to corruption, Colin and I voted for him as a fellow blogpowerer, not as a Zambesi Liberation Force supporter or Golden Labrador Owners club nominee or whatever.

Welshcakes - wish you'd go for one of these things - suppose we need to nominate you first.

Jeremy - interesting tone, Jeremy, from the normally softly spoken trekker. Jeremy, people like us never get nominated for anything. Don't know why - it just happens.

Mutley - the situation may be coming to an end. I have a Cunning Plan!!

Pommy - my pleasure.

RS - stalwart chap that you are, sir!

pommygranate said...

Colin - ok. tomorrow's project.

RS - you're a gent.

They're playing the anti-Brit card now. So its war.

james higham said...

Colin, think I just made a huge mistake. Please see update on this post. I think apologies are due to you.

Nigel Sedgwick said...

For future blog-polls, perhaps the Single Transferable Vote should be used.

With this, one would be able to recommend some blogs without totally disrecommending others (which seems to be the current embarrassment).

[Note. This approach also has great potential for improving the election of governments, not least through weakening the effect present in political systems dominated by a very small number of political parties. In fact, each party would, with STV, be able to put up 2 or more candidates (say from different wings of the party), without risking dividing their overall vote: that might introduce some interesting effects.]

Best regards

pommygranate said...

Poll is here.

It's something the Aus Libertarian Society are running - nothing to do with Colin's Carnival.

thanks for all your help chaps and chappesses.

james higham said...

...Single Transferable Vote...

Are you perhaps referring to preferential voting, Nigel, such as they use in Australia?

Gracchi said...

James I got to the end of this post- and my conclusion was that James is a nice guy who often thinks he's done the wrong thing even when he hasn't.

Nigel Sedgwick said...

James asks:Are you perhaps referring to preferential voting, Nigel, such as they use in Australia?

Yes. As described in Wikipedia at Instant Runoff Voting:

When the single transferable vote (STV) system is applied to a single-winner election it becomes the same as IRV. For this reason IRV is sometimes considered to be merely a special form of STV. However, because STV was designed for multi-seat constituencies, many scholars consider it to be a separate system from IRV, and that is the convention followed in this article.

And STV is described in Wikipedia at: Single Transferable Vote.

I'm wondering if the reference to Australia is hinting at some material electoral disadvantage that does not apply to "first past the post"? That would be to the electorate, rather than to some of the candidates and their political parties. If so, I'd be interested to see the case made (here or on another main post).

Best regards

james higham said...

I'll just reply to Nigel here. We were always taught FPTP, Preferential and Prop Rep.

Of these, preferential seems good but is still less inclusive because there is still one winner.

With proportional, there are many winners, according to quota percentage gained.

lady macleod said...

james

I now have a headache and am feeling the slightest bit faint. I'll have a lie down and get back to you.