Posts by FletcherB
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
Different style? We may just get used to it. Like that he is not all about the soundbites. Hell ,like even that he thinks long and slow before he responds to what often are ridiculous, repetitive questions? Yeah nah?
I know it seems like it could be good... it appeals to my senses too.... but other leaders of the opposition who gave considered and balanced answers include such election "winners" as Bill English and Geoffrey Palmer. For some reason, it hasn't appealed to the public in the past?
-
I just wanted to check if my election-day helper was following procedure, or being obtuse... Can you tell me if the following is what you're trained to do?
They looked at my easy vote card, which has not just my name, but also the page and line number of my entry....
And appeared to completely ignore the second bit of info.... and found my name dictionary-search style... flicked through the roll, first backwards from the middle, then forwards when they went too far.... finding the page with best alphabetical match to my name.... and then searching up/down the lines with their ruler until they found my name.... And then they double-checked that the page/line they'd found matched that on the easy vote card....
It just seems like it might be a bit easier to go the the page number written on the card, scroll the ruler down to the indicated line.... and double check the name was the same?
-
Hard News: Last Words, in reply to Tristan,
I think question 2 is wrong.” Under which system do you vote for a party and an electorate MP?”
correct answer PV!?
I've just re-taken it and they have corrected it... SM&MMP it is...
-
Hard News: Last Words, in reply to Carol Stewart,
Herald – a quiz on knowledge of the different voting systems
The Herald says I got question 2 wrong...
Under which system do you vote for a party and an electorate MP?
You answered: SM & MMP
Answer: PV
Am I being an idiot, or is it the Herald that's wrong? -
Hard News: The Solemnity of the Day, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
The only exception being the Government losing confidence or supply, in which case the election is held at a time determined by statute NOT the strategic convenience of the Prime Minister.
Surely, if you wanted to call a snap election under such rules.... you'd just call for a confidence vote and lose it on purpose?
-
Sorry, I'm a couple of pages late, but...
I think it’s just electoral thrill seeking rather than any calculated sabotage plot
Oh come on.... 700 billboards "improved", 50 people doing it in wide-spread locations, all with the same stickers.....
How could you get that to magically just happen over one night WITHOUT a calculated plot?
Clearly, whoever organized it, has their shit together...
-
It’s not lazy, it’s realistic…. they only have to stand for a month or two, and then sit for the next three years. :)
-
Q. If the ex-leader of one major party, was to approach an established but dwindling minor party and offer to take over the leadership if the current leader stepped down, and oh, by the way, I can bring all this donation money with me…. and while we’re at it, let’s parachute in this other ex-mp from the same major party into the prime electoral seat possibility…
Would that qualify for the description of one party buying a support party?
Would that almost be like your first question about major parties pretending to be two different parties for list and electoral votes?
-
I believe garden tools may require steam cleaning to satisfy MAF? (professionally done with a certificate or receipt to prove it, probably).
Worth the effort if they are quality items, but not if they are just cheapies from the local bargain house...
-
Field Theory: Four Years Ago, in reply to 3410,
No, we don’t.
According to that article....
1) No team is likely to win... they all have a probability of less than half.
2) the All Blacks probability of winning, despite being lower than 50%, is still higher than double any other team.
I would suggest that #2 makes more sense than #1, seeing as, it's impossible for no team to win the cup.
Going by history alone, Aus and SA have two wins apiece, and yet their statistical probability of winning is radically different.
I suggest the main conclusion to be drawn is that historical performance is obviously important, a purely mathematical reckoning is not necessarily the best approach to predicting the outcome.